
-0- 





<\ ***** ,0T "O^ 





0 ^ V< ^ • 





AMERICA 

THROUGH THE SPECTACLES 
OF AN ORIENTAL DIPLOMAT 



AMEEIC A 

THROUGH THE SPECTACLES OF 
AN ORIENTAL DIPLOMAT 

BY 

WU, TINGEANG, LL. D. 

Late Chinese Minister to the United States of America, 
Spain, Peru, Mexico and Cuba; recently Min- 
ister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of 
Justice for the Provincial Government of 
the Republic of China, etc. 

WITH ILLUSTRATIONS FROM SKETCHES BY 
THE AUTHOR AND PROM PHOTOGRAPHS 




NEW YORK 
FREDERICK A. STOKES COMPANY 
PUBLISHERS 



Copyright, 1914, 61/ 
Frederick A. Stokes Company 



AZZ rip/ite reserved 



0 



April, 1914 



APR -6 1914 



©CU371244 



PREFACE 



Of all nations in the world, America is the 
most interesting to the Chinese. A handful 
of people left England to explore this country: 
gradually their number increased, and, in 
course of time, emigrants from other lands 
swelled the population. They were governed 
by officials from the home of the first settlers, 
but when it appeared to them that they were 
being treated unjustly, they rebelled and 
declared war against their rulers, the strongest 
nation on the face of the earth. After seven 
years of strenuous, perilous, and bloody war- 
fare, during which thousands of lives were 
sacrificed on both sides, the younger race 
shook off the yoke of the older, and England 
was compelled to recognize the independence 
of the American States. Since then, in the 
comparatively short space of one hundred and 
thirty years, those revolutionists and their 
descendants, have not only made the common- 
wealth the richest in the world, but have 
founded a nation whose word now carries 
weight with all the other great powers. 

The territory at first occupied was not 
larger than one or two provinces of China, 

[v] 



PREFACE 



but by purchase, and in other ways, the com- 
monwealth has gradually grown till now it 
extends from the Atlantic to the Pacific 
Ocean, from the north where ice is perpetual 
to the south where the sun is as hot as in 
equatorial Singapore. This young republic 
has already produced many men and women 
who are distinguished in the fields of literature, 
science, art and invention. There hosts of 
men, who in their youth were as poor as church 
mice, have, by dint of perseverance and busi- 
ness capacity, become multi-millionaires. 
There you may see the richest man in the 
world living a simple and abstemious life, 
without pomp and ostentation, daily walking 
in the streets unattended even by a servant. 
Many of them have so much money that they 
do not know what to do with it. Many 
foreign counts, dukes, and even princes have 
been captured by their wealthy and handsome 
daughters, some of whom have borne sons who 
have become high officers of state in foreign 
lands. There you find rich people who devote 
their time and wealth to charitable works, 
sometimes endowing libraries not only in 
their own land, but all over the world; there 
you will find lynching tolerated, or impossible 
of prevention; there one man may kill another, 
and by the wonderful process of law escape 

[vi] 



PREFACE 



the extreme penalty of death; there you meet 
the people who are most favorably disposed 
toward the maintenance of peace, and who 
hold conferences and conventions with that 
object in view almost every year; there an 
American multi-millionaire devotes a great 
proportion of his time to the propaganda of 
peace, and at his own expense has built in a 
foreign country a palatial building to be used 
as a tribunal of peace. 1 Yet these people have 
waged war on behalf of other nationalities 
who they thought were being unjustly treated 
and when victorious they have not held on 
to the fruits of their victory without paying 
a reasonable price. 2 There the inhabitants 
are, as a rule, extremely patriotic, and in a 
recent foreign war many gave up their busi- 
nesses and professions and volunteered for 
service in the army; one of her richest sons 
enlisted and equipped a whole regiment at 
his own expense, and took command of it. 
In that country all the citizens are heirs 
apparent to the throne, called the White 

1 This magnificent building at The Hague, which is aptly called 
the Palace of Peace, was formally opened on the 28th of August, 
1913, in the presence of Queen Wilhelmina, Mr. Carnegie (the foun- 
der) and a large assembly of foreign representatives. 

2 I refer to the Spanish-American War. Having captured the 
Philippine Islands, the United States paid $20,000,000, gold, for it 
to the Spanish Government. 

[vii] 



PREFACE 



House. A man may become the chief ruler 
for a few years, but after leaving the White 
House he reverts to private citizenship; if he 
is a lawyer he may practise and appear before 
a judge, whom he appointed while he was 
president. There a woman may become a 
lawyer and plead a case before a court of 
justice on behalf of a male client; there free- 
dom of speech and criticism are allowed to 
the extreme limit, and people are liable to be 
annoyed by slanders and libels without much 
chance of obtaining satisfaction; there you 
will see women wearing "Merry Widow" 
hats who are not widows but spinsters, or 
married women whose husbands are very 
much alive, and the hats in many cases are 
as large as three feet in diameter; 1 there you 
may travel by rail most comfortably on palace 
cars, and at night you may sleep on Pullman 
cars, to find in the morning that a young lady 
has been sleeping in the berth above your bed. 
The people are most ingenious in that they can 
float a company and water the stock without 
using a drop of fluid ; there are bears and bulls 
in the Stock Exchange, but you do not see 
these animals fight, although they roar and 
yell loudly enough. It is certainly a most 

1 This was several years ago. Fashions change every year. The 
present type is equally ludicrous. 

[viii] 



PREFACE 



extraordinary country. The people are won- 
derful and are most interesting and instructive 
to the Chinese. 

Such a race should certainly be very inter- 
esting to study. During my two missions to 
America where I resided nearly eight years, re- 
peated requests were made that I should 
write my observations and impressions of 
America. I did not [feel justified in doing so 
for several reasons : first, I could not find time 
for such a task amidst my official duties; 
secondly, although I had been travelling 
through many sections of the country, and 
had come in contact officially and socially 
with many classes of people, still there might 
be some features of the country and some traits 
of the people which had escaped my attention; 
and thirdly, though I had seen much in Amer- 
ica to arouse my admiration, I felt that here 
and there, there was room for improvement, 
and to be compelled to criticize people who had 
been generous, courteous, and kind was some- 
thing I did not wish to do. In answer to my 
scruples I was told that I was not expected 
to write about America in a partial or unfair 
manner, but to state impressions of the land 
just as I had found it. A lady friend, for 
whose opinion I have the highest respect, said 
in effect, "We want you to write about our 

[ix] 



PREFACE 



country and to speak of our people in an 
impartial and candid way; we do not want you 
to bestow praise where it is undeserved; and 
when you find anything deserving of criticism 
or condemnation you should not hesitate to 
mention it, for we like our faults to be pointed 
out that we may reform." I admit the 
soundness of my friend's argument. It shows 
the broad-mindedness and magnanimity of 
the American people. In writing the follow- 
ing pages I have uniformly followed the 
principles laid down by my American lady 
friend. I have not scrupled to frankly and 
freely express my views, but I hope not in 
any carping spirit; and I trust American 
readers will forgive me if they find some 
opinions they cannot endorse. I assure them 
they were not formed hastily or unkindly. 
Indeed, I should not be a sincere friend were 
I to picture their country as a perfect paradise, 
or were I to gloss over what seem to me to be 
their defects. 



[x] 



CONTENTS 

CHAPTEB PAGE 

Preface v 

I The Importance of Names .... 1 

II American Prosperity Is 

III American Government ..... 22 

IV America and China 40 

V American Education . 54 

VI American Business Methods ... 66 

VII American Freedom and Equality. . 81 

VIII American Manners 99 

IX American Women 116 

X American Costumes 131 

XI American versus Chinese Civilization . 144 

XII Amfrican versus Chinese Civilization. 

(Continued) 163 

XIII Dinners, Banquets, Etc 193 

XIV Theaters 223 

XV Opera and Musical Entertainments 241 

XVI Conjuring and Circuses .... 250 

XVII Sports . 257 



ILLUSTRATIONS 

Wu Tingfang ..... Frontispiece i 

FACING 
PAGE 

Photograph showing the superiority of the dress 

of Chinese women to that of American women 134 1/ 

The dress worn by Chinese ladies on ceremonial 

occasions . . . . . . 154 ^ 

The uniform suggested by the author and laid be- 
fore the President and Parliament . . 160 V 

" Not even on the American stage have I seen 
such gorgeous costumes as I have seen on 
the simple Chinese stage " . . 238 

" We like to do our own playing. Our national 

game is the shuttlecock " . . • 258 



AMERICA 

THROUGH THE SPECTACLES 
OF AN ORIENTAL DIPLOMAT 



AMERICA 

THROUGH THE SPECTACLES 
OF AN ORIENTAL DIPLOMAT 



CHAPTER I 



THE IMPORTANCE OF NAMES 

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose 
By any other name would smell as sweet." 



OT WITHSTANDING these lines, I main- 



1 1 tain that the selection of names is impor- 
tant. They should always be carefully chosen. 
They are apt to influence friendships or to 
excite prejudices according to their signifi- 
cance. We Chinese are very particular in 
this matter. When a son is born the father 
or the grandfather chooses a name for the 
infant boy which, according to his horoscope, 
is likely to insure him success, or a name is 
selected which indicates the wish of the family 
for the new-born child. Hence such names 
as "happiness," "prosperity," "longevity," 
"success," and others, with like propitious 
import, are common in China. With regard 
to girls their names are generally selected 
from flowers, fruits, or trees. Particular care 




[i] 



AMERICA 



is taken not to use a name which has a bad 
meaning. In Washington I once met a man 
in an elevator whose name was "Coffin." 
Was I to be blamed for wondering if the eleva- 
tor would be my coffin ? On another occasion 
I met a man whose name was "Death," and 
as soon as I heard his name I felt inclined to 
run away, for I did not wish to die. I am 
not superstitious. I have frequently taken 
dinner with thirteen persons at the table, 
and I do not hesitate to start on a journey on 
a Friday. I often do things which would not 
be done by superstitious persons in China. 
But to meet a man calling himself "Coffin" 
or "Death" was too much for me, and with 
all my disbelief in superstition I could not 
help showing some repugnance to those who 
bore such names. 

Equally important, if not more so, is the 
selection of a name for a state or a nation. 
When the several states of America became 
independent they called themselves the 
"United States of America" — a very happy 
idea. The Union was originally composed 
of thirteen states, covering about 300,000 
square miles ; it is now composed of forty-eight 
states and three territories, which in area 
amount to 3,571,492 square miles, practically 
as large in extent as China, the oldest nation 

[2] 



NAMES 



in the world. It should be noted that the 
name is most comprehensive: it might com- 
prise the entire continent of North and South 
America. It is safe to say that the founders 
of the nation did not choose such a name 
without consideration, and doubtless the desig- 
nation "United States of America" conceals 
a deep motive. I once asked a gentleman 
who said he was an American whether he 
had come from South or North America, or 
whether he was a Mexican, a Peruvian or a 
native of any of the countries in Central 
America? He replied with emphasis that he 
was an American citizen of the United States. 
I said it might be the United States of 
Mexico, or Argentina, or other United States, 
but he answered that when he called himself 
a citizen it could not mean any other than 
that of the United States of America. I have 
asked many other Americans similar questions 
and they all have given me replies in the same 
way. We Chinese call our nation "The 
Middle Kingdom"; it was supposed to be in 
the center of the earth. I give credit to the 
founders of the United States for a better 
knowledge of geography than that possessed 
by my countrymen of ancient times and do 
not assume that the newly formed nation 
was supposed to comprise the whole continent 



AMERICA 



of North and South America, yet the name 
chosen is so comprehensive as to lead one 
naturally to suspect that it was intended 
to include the entire continent. However, 
from my observation of their national con- 
duct, I believe their purpose was just and 
humane; it was to set a noble example to the 
sister nations in the Western Hemisphere, and 
to knit more closely all the nations on that 
continent through the bonds of mutual justice, 
goodwill and friendship. The American na- 
tion is, indeed, itself a pleasing and unique 
example of the principle of democracy. Its 
government is ideal, with a liberal constitu- 
tion, which in effect declares that all men 
are created equal, and that the government 
is " of the people, for the people, and by the 
people." Anyone with ordinary intelligence 
and with open eyes, who should visit any city, 
town or village in America, could not but be 
impressed with the orderly and unostentatious 
way in which it is governed by the local 
authorities, or help being struck by the plain 
and democratic character of the people. 
Even in the elementary schools, democracy 
is taught and practised. I remember visiting 
a public school for children in Philadelphia, 
which I shall never forget. There were about 
three or four hundred children, boys and 

[4] 



NAMES 



girls, between seven and fourteen years of age. 
They elected one of their students as mayor, 
another as judge, another as police com- 
missioner, and in fact they elected for the 
control of their school community almost all 
the officials who usually govern a city. There 
were a few Chinese children among the 
students, and one of them was pointed out 
to me as the police superintendent. This 
not only eloquently spoke of his popularity, 
but showed goodwill and harmony among 
the several hundred children, and the entire 
absence of race feeling. The principals and 
teachers told me that they had no difficulty 
whatever with the students. If one of them 
did anything wrong, which was not often, 
he would be taken by the student policeman 
before the judge, who would try the case, and 
decide it on its merits, and punish or discharge 
his fellow student as justice demanded. I was 
assured by the school authorities that this 
system of self-government worked admirably; 
it not only relieved the teachers of the burden 
of constantly looking after the several hundred 
pupils, but each of them felt a moral responsi- 
bility to behave well, for the sake of preserv- 
ing the peace and good name of the school. 
Thus early imbued with the idea of self-gov- 
ernment, and entrusted with the responsi- 

[5] 



AMERICA 



bilities of its administration, these children 
when grown up, take a deep interest in federal 
and municipal affairs, and, when elected for 
office, invariably perform their duties effi- 
ciently and with credit to themselves. 

It cannot be disputed that the United States 
with its democratic system of government 
has exercised a great influence over the states 
and nations in Central and South America. 
The following data showing the different 
nations of America, with the dates at which 
they turned their respective governments 
from Monarchies into Republics, all subse- 
quent to the independence of the United 
States, are very significant. 

Mexico became a Republic in 1823, Hon- 
duras in 1839, Salvador in 1839, Nicaragua 
in 1821, Costa Rica in 1821, Panama in 1903, 
Colombia in 1819, Venezuela in 1830, Ecuador 
in 1810, Brazil in 1889, Peru in 1821, Bolivia 
in 1825, Paraguay in 1811, Chile in 1810, 
Argentina in 1824, and Uruguay in 1828. 

These Republics have been closely mod- 
elled upon the republican form of government 
of the United States; thus, nearly all the 
nations or states on the continent of America 
have become Republics. Canada still be- 
longs to Great Britain. The fair and gener- 
ous policy pursued by the Imperial Govern- 

[6] 



NAMES 



ment of Great Britain accounts for the 
Canadians' satisfaction with their political 
position, and for the fact that they do not 
wish a change. It must be noted, however, 
that a section of the American people would 
like to see Canada incorporated with the 
United States. I remember that at a public 
meeting held in Washington, at which Sir Wil- 
frid Laurier, then Premier of Canada, was 
present, an eminent judge of the Federal 
Supreme Court jocularly expressed a wish that 
Canada should be annexed to the United 
States. Later, Mr. Champ Clark, a leader 
of the Democratic party in the House of 
Representatives, addressed the House urging 
the annexation of Canada. Even if these 
statements are not taken seriously they at 
least show the feelings of some people, and he 
would be a bold man who would prophesy 
the political status of Canada in the future. 
There is, however, no present indication of 
any change being desired by the Canadians, 
and it may be safely presumed that the 
existing conditions will continue for many 
years to come. This is not to be wondered at, 
for Canada though nominally a British colony 
practically enjoys almost all the privileges of 
an independent state. She possesses a con- 
stitution similar to that of the United King- 

[7] 



AMERICA 



dom, with a parliament of two houses, called 
the "Senate," and the "House of Commons." 
The Sovereign of Great Britain appoints only 
the Governor General who acts in his name, 
but the Dominion is governed by a responsible 
Ministry, and all domestic affairs are managed 
by local officials, without interference from the 
Home Government. Canadians enjoy as 
many rights as the inhabitants of England, 
with the additional advantage that they do 
not have to bear the burden of maintaining 
an army and navy. Some years ago, if I 
remember rightly, in consequence of some 
agitation or discussion for independence, the 
late Lord Derby, then Secretary of State for 
the Colonies, stated that if the Canadians 
really wished for independence, the Home 
Government would not oppose, but that they 
should consider if they would gain anything by 
the change, seeing that they already had self- 
government, enjoyed all the benefits of a free 
people, and that the only right the Home 
Government reserved was the appointment 
of the Governor-General, although it assumed 
the responsibility of protecting every inch of 
their territory from encroachment. Since 
this sensible advice from the Colonial Secre- 
tary, I have heard nothing more of the agita- 
tion for independence. 

[8] 



NAMES 



From a commercial point of view, and for 
the welfare of the people, there is not much 
to choose to-day between a Limited Monarchy 
and a Republic. Let us, for instance, com- 
pare England with the United States. The 
people of England are as free and independ- 
ent as the people of the United States, and 
though subjects, they enjoy as much freedom 
as Americans. There are, however, some 
advantages in favor of a Republic. Ameri- 
cans until recently paid their President a 
salary of only $50,000 a year; it is now $75,000 
with an additional allowance of $25,000 for 
travelling expenses. This is small indeed 
compared with the Civil List of the King or 
Emperor of any great nation. There are 
more chances in a Republic for ambitious 
men to distinguish themselves; for instance, 
a citizen can become a president, and practi- 
cally assume the functions of a king or an 
emperor. In fact the President of the United 
States appoints his own cabinet officials, 
ambassadors, ministers, etc. It is generally 
stated that every new president has the 
privilege of making more than ten thousand 
appointments. With regard to the adminis- 
tration and executive functions he has in 
practice more power than is usually exercised 
by a king or an emperor of a Constitutional 

[9] 



AMERICA 



Monarchy. On the other hand, in some 
matters, the executive of a Republic cannot 
do what a king or an emperor can do; for 
example, a president cannot declare war 
against a foreign nation without first obtain- 
ing the consent of Congress. In a monarch- 
ical government the king or the cabinet 
officials assume enormous responsibilities. 
Lord Beaconsfield (then Mr. D'Israeli), while 
he was Prime Minister of England, purchased 
in 1875 from the Khedive of Egypt 176,602 
Suez Canal shares for the sum of £3,976,582 
on his own responsibility, and without con- 
sulting the Imperial Parliament. When Par- 
liament or Congress has to be consulted 
about everything, great national opportunities 
to do some profitable business must undoubt- 
edly be sometimes lost. No such bold national 
investment as that made by Lord Beaconsfield 
could have been undertaken by any American 
president on his own responsibility. Mr. 
Cleveland, when president of the United 
States, said that "the public affairs of the 
United States are transacted in a glass house." 

Washington, in his farewell address, advised 
his compatriots that on account of the 
detached and distant situation of their 
country they should, in extending their com- 
mercial relations with foreign nations, have 

[10] 



NAMES 



as little political connection with them as 
possible; and he asked this pertinent and 
pregnant question, "Why, by interweaving 
our destiny with that of any part of Europe, 
entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils 
of European ambition, rivalship, interest, 
humor, or caprice?" In 1823, twenty-seven 
years after Washington's celebrated address, 
President Monroe in his annual message to 
Congress warned the European Powers not 
to plant any new colonies on any portion of 
the American hemisphere, as any attempt 
on their part to extend their system in that 
part of * the world would be considered as 
dangerous to the peace and safety of the 
United States. This "Monroe Doctrine," 
as it has since been called, practically protects 
every state and country on the American 
continent from attack or interference by any 
foreign power, and it cannot be denied that 
it has been and is now the chief factor in 
preserving the integrity of all the countries on 
that continent. Thus the United States is 
assuming the role of guardian over the other 
American nations. In the city of Washington 
there is an International Bureau of the 
American Republics, in which all the Repub- 
lics of Central and South America are repre- 
sented. It is housed in a magnificent palace 

[in 



AMERICA 



made possible by the beneficence of Mr. 
Andrew Carnegie, the American multi-mil- 
lionaire and philanthropist, and the contribu- 
tions of the different governments. It cost 
750,000 gold dollars, and Mr. John Barrett, 
the capable and popular director of the Bureau, 
has well called it "a temple of friendship 
and commerce and a meeting place for the 
American Republics." The Bureau is sup- 
ported by the joint contributions of the twenty- 
one American Republics, and its affairs are con- 
trolled by a governing board composed of their 
diplomatic representatives in Washington, 
with the American Secretary of State as chair- 
man ex officio. This institution no doubt 
strengthens the position of the United States 
and is calculated to draw the American 
Republics into closer friendship. 



[12] 



CHAPTER II 



AMERICAN PROSPERITY 

NE of the main causes of the prosperity 



V_>/ of the great American Republic is its 
natural resources. It possesses coal, oil, silver, 
gold, copper, and all the other mineral ores. 
Nature seems, indeed, to have provided almost 
everything that man needs. The soil is rich; 
wheat and every kind of fruit can be grown; 
but favorable as are these native conditions 
they could not be turned to any great ad- 
vantage without the skill and industry of 
enterprising men. Many countries in Africa 
and Asia possess equal advantages, but they 
are not equally prosperous. This leads me to 
the consideration of another reason for Amer- 
ica's growth. The men who have migrated to 
the United States have not been rich people. 
They went there to make a living. They were 
prepared to work, their purpose was to im- 
prove their condition, and they were willing 
to undertake any manual or mental labor to ac- 
complish their object. They were hardy and 
strong and could bear a heavy strain. Their 
children inherited their good qualities, and so 
an American is generally more hard working 




[13] 



AMERICA 



and enterprising than most of the people in 
Europe and elsewhere. 

Another reason for America's success is the 
great freedom which each citizen enjoys. 
Every man considers himself the equal of 
every other, and a young man who is ambi- 
tious will not rest until he reaches the top of 
his profession or trade. Thousands of Amer- 
icans who were once very poor, have become 
millionaires or multi-millionaires. Many of 
them had no college education, they taught 
themselves, and some of them have become 
both literary and scholarly. A college or 
university education does not necessarily 
make a man learned; it only gives him the 
opportunity to learn. It is said that some 
college men have proven themselves to be 
quite ignorant, or rather that they do not 
know so much as those who have been self- 
taught. I do not in any way wish to dis- 
parage a college education; no doubt men 
who have been trained in a university start 
in life with better prospects and with a 
greater chance of success, but those men 
who have not had such advantages have 
doubtless done much to make their country 
great and prosperous, and they ought to be 
recognized as great men. 

The general desire of the American people to 
[14] 



PROSPERITY 



travel abroad is one of their good traits. 
People who never leave their homes cannot 
know much. A person may become well- 
informed by reading, but his practical knowl- 
edge cannot be compared with that of a per- 
son who has travelled. We Chinese are great 
sinners in this regard. A Chinese maxim says, 
"It is dangerous to ride on horseback or 
to go on a voyage": hence until very recently 
we had a horror of going abroad. A person 
who remains all his life in his own town is 
generally narrow-minded, self-opinioned, and 
selfish. The American people are free from 
these faults. It is not only the rich and the 
well-to-do who visit foreign countries, but 
tradesmen and workmen when they have 
saved a little money also often cross the At- 
lantic. Some years ago a Senator in Wash- 
ington told me that he crossed the Atlantic 
Ocean every summer and spent several months 
in Europe, and that the next trip would be his 
twenty-eighth voyage. I found, however, 
that he had never gone beyond Europe. I 
ventured to suggest that he should extend his 
next annual journey a little farther and visit 
Japan, China, and other places in the Far East 
which I felt sure he would find both interesting 
and instructive. I have travelled through 
many countries in Europe and South America, 

[15] 



AMERICA 



and wherever I have gone and at whatever 
hotel I have put up, I have always found some 
Americans, and on many occasions I have met 
friends and acquaintances whom I had known 
in Washington or New York. But it is not 
only the men who go abroad; in many cases 
ladies also travel by themselves. On several 
occasions lady friends from Washington, 
Philadelphia, and New York have visited me 
in Peking. This is one of the Americans' 
strong points. Is it not wiser and much more 
useful to disburse a few hundred dollars or so 
in travelling and gaining knowledge, coming 
in contact with other peoples and enlarging 
the mind, than to spend large sums of money 
in gaudy dresses, precious stones, trinkets, and 
other luxuries ? 

In a large country like America where a 
considerable portion of the land still remains 
practically uncultivated or undeveloped, 
hardy, industrious, and patient workmen are a 
necessity. But the almost unchecked influx 
of immigrants who are not desirable citizens 
cannot but harm the country. In these days 
of international trade it is right that ingress 
and egress from one country to another should 
be unhampered, but persons who have com- 
mitted crimes at home, or who are ignorant 
and illiterate, cannot become desirable citi- 

[16] 



PROSPERITY 



zens anywhere. They should be barred out 
of the United States of America. It is well 
known that foreigners take part in the munici- 
pal and federal affairs of the country as soon 
as they become citizens. Now if such persons 
really worked for the good of their adopted 
country, there could be no objection to this, 
but it is no secret that many have no such 
motives. That being so, it is a question 
whether steps should not be taken to limit 
their freedom. On the other hand, as many 
farms suffer from lack of workmen, people 
from whatever country who are industrious, 
patient, and persevering ought to be admitted 
as laborers. They would be a great boon to 
the nation. The fear of competition by cheap 
labor is causeless; regulations might be drawn 
up for the control of these foreign laborers, 
and on their arrival they could be drafted to 
those places where their services might be 
most urgently needed. So long as honest and 
steady workmen are excluded for no reason 
other than that they are Asiatics, while white 
men are indiscriminately admitted, I fear that 
the prosperity of the country cannot be con- 
sidered permanent, for agriculture is the back- 
bone of stable wealth. Yet at present it is the 
country's wealth which is one of the im- 
portant factors of America's greatness. In 

[17] 



AMERICA 



the United States there are thousands of in- 
dividuals whose fortunes are counted by seven 
or eight figures in gold dollars. And much of 
this money has been used to build railways, or 
to develop manufactories and other useful 
industries. The country has grown great 
through useful work, and not on account of 
the army and navy. In 1881 America's army 
numbered only 26,622 men, and her navy con- 
sisted of only 24 iron-clads, 2 torpedo-boats, 
and 25 tugs, but in 1910 the peace strength 
of her army was 96,628 and the navy boasted 
33 battleships and 120 armored cruisers of 
different sizes. 

Within the last few years it has been the 
policy of many nations to increase the army 
and to build as many Dreadnaughts and 
super-dreadnaughts as possible. Many states- 
men have been infected by this Dreadnaught 
fever. Their policy seems to be based on the 
idea that the safety of a nation depends on 
the number of its battleships. Even peaceful 
and moderate men are carried away by this 
hobby, and support it. It is forgotten that 
great changes have taken place during the 
last twenty or thirty years; that a nation 
can now be attacked by means quite beyond 
the reach of Dreadnaughts. The enormous 
sums spent on these frightful monsters, if 

[18] 



PROSPERITY 



applied to more worthy objects, would have 
a greater effect in preserving the nations' 
heritages than anything these monstrosities 
can do. 

The nation which has a large army and a 
strong navy may be called powerful, but it 
cannot be considered great without other good 
requisites. I consider a nation as great when 
she is peacefully, justly, and humanely gov- 
erned, and when she possesses a large number 
of benevolent and good men who have a voice 
in the administration. The greater the num- 
ber of good men that a nation possesses the 
greater she becomes. America is known to 
have a large number of such men and women, 
men and women who devote their time and 
money to preaching peace among the nations. 
Mr. Andrew Carnegie is worth a hundred 
Dreadnaughts. He and others like him are 
the chief factors in safeguarding the interests 
and welfare of America. The territory of the 
United States is separated from Europe and 
other countries by vast oceans; so that it 
would be difficult, if not impossible, for a foe 
to successfully attack any portion of that 
country. But who wishes to attack her? 
She has scarcely an enemy. No country is 
invaded by another without cause, and as the 
United States is in friendly relations with all 

[19] ' 



AMERICA 



the Powers, there is no reason to fear foreign 
invasion. Even should a foreign power suc- 
cessfully attack her and usurp a portion of 
her territories, a supposition which is most 
improbable, would the enemy be able to hold 
what he seized? History shows that no 
conquered country has ever been successfully 
and permanently kept without the people's 
consent, and there is not the least chance that 
the Americans will ever consent to the rule 
of a foreign government. 

It is to be hoped that the United States will 
not follow the example of other nations and 
unduly increase her armaments, but that she 
will take the lead in the universal peace move- 
ment and show the world that a great power 
can exist and maintain her position without 
force of arms. I am aware that general dis- 
armament is not popular among statesmen, 
that it has been denounced by an eminent 
authority as a "will-o'-the wisp," that arbi- 
tration has been styled a " Jack-o'-lantern/ * 
but this is not the first time a good and work- 
able scheme has been branded with opprobri- 
ous names. The abolition of slavery was at 
one time considered to be an insane man's 
dream; now all people believe in it. Will the 
twentieth century witness the collapse of our 
present civilization? 

[20] 



PROSPERITY 



Why are the world's armaments constantly 
increasing? To my mind it is due to two 
causes, one of which is mistrust. One nation 
begins to build Dreadnaughts, another does 
the same through fear and mistrust. The 
second cause is that it is the fashion of some 
nations to follow the example of others that 
they may preserve their position as great naval 
powers. But it is unnecessary for the United 
States to show such mistrust or to follow such 
fashion. She should rather, as becomes a 
great and powerful nation, take an independ- 
ent course of her own. If she sets the ex- 
ample other nations in due time will follow 
her. The peace of the world will be more 
surely guarded, and America will win the 
approbation, the respect, and the gratitude 
of all peace-loving people. 



[21] 



CHAPTER III 



AMERICAN GOVERNMENT 

DEMOCRATIC principles were enunciated 
by Chinese philosophers as long ago as 
4,500 years, and from time to time various 
emperors and statesmen have endeavored 
to apply them to the government of China, 
but these principles in all their minute de- 
tails have been exemplified only by the wisdom 
of the statesmen in the West. In the United 
States they are in full swing. As China 
has now become a Republic, not in name 
only but in fact, it will be well for her states- 
men and politicians to examine the American 
constitution, and to study its workings. 
To do this at close range it will be necessary 
for the student to visit Washington, the 
Capital of the United States of America. 
Here he will find the President, or the chief 
of the nation. With the co-operation of 
his Cabinet and a large staff of assistants, 
the President administers the affairs of the 
Federal Government. He may be a new 
man and have had no previous training 
in diplomacy, and little administrative ex- 

[22] 



GOVERNMENT 



perience, but in all probability he is a man 
of resource and adaptability, who has mas- 
tered every detail of his high office. All 
important matters are referred to him, so 
that his daily work taxes his whole strength 
and energy. Another part of his function 
is to see the Congressmen, Senators, or Repre- 
sentatives, and others who call to see him on 
business, and this takes up a great part of 
his time. In fact, he is expected to be, and 
generally is, Suaviter in modo, fortiter in re. 

In Washington the National Congress, 
which is composed of the Senate and of the 
House of Representatives, holds its sittings 
in the Capitol, and passes bills subject to 
the approval of the President. If he signs 
a bill it becomes law, and binds the nation. 
The basic principle of democracy is the 
sovereignty of the people, but as the people 
cannot of themselves govern the country, 
they must delegate their power to agents 
who act for them. Thus they elect the 
Chief Magistrate to govern the country, 
and legislators to make the laws. The powers 
given to these agents are irrevocable during 
their respective terms of office. The elec- 
tors are absolutely bound by their actions. 
Whatever laws Congress may pass, the people 
must strictly obey; thus the servants of 

[23] 



AMERICA 



the people really become their masters. 
There is no fear, however, that their masters 
pro tempore, will betray their trust, as any 
neglect of duty on their part, or disregard of 
the wishes of their constituents would most 
likely destroy their chances of re-election. 

According to the terms of the Constitu- 
tion, the senators and representatives must 
be residents of the states for which they are 
chosen. This is an excellent provision, in- 
suring that the people's delegates possess 
local knowledge and know how to safeguard 
the interests and welfare of the states which 
sent them to Washington. On the other 
hand, as each state, irrespective of its size, 
is entitled to elect only two Senators, and 
to send only a limited number of Represent- 
atives to the House, proportionally to its 
population, unfortunately it frequently hap- 
pens that eminent, capable, and well-known 
public men, of large experience, are deprived 
of an opportunity to serve their country. 
In England, and in some other lands, the 
electors may choose as their representative 
a resident of any city, borough, or county 
as they please, and it only occasionally hap- 
pens that the member of Parliament actually 
lives in the district which he represents. 
Is it advisable to adopt a similar system in 

[24] 



GOVERNMENT 



the United States? It could not be done 
without amending the Constitution, and 
this would not be easy; but every nation, 
as well as each individual, should be prepared, 
at all times, to receive fresh light, and be 
willing to change old customs to suit new 
conditions, and so I make the suggestion. 

The fixing of four years as the term of office 
for the President was an excellent idea, in- 
tended no doubt to prevent an unpopular or 
bad President from remaining too long in 
power. It is, however, gradually dawning on 
the minds of intelligent people that this limited 
term, though excellent in theory, is very incon- 
venient in practice. However intelligent and 
capable a new President may be, several 
months must elapse before he can thoroughly 
understand all the details incidental to his 
exalted position, involving, in addition to 
unavoidable social functions, the daily re- 
ception of callers, and many other multifarious 
duties. By the time he has become familiar 
with these matters, and the work of the office 
is running smoothly, half of his term has gone; 
and should he aspire to a second term, which 
is quite natural, he must devote a great deal 
of time and attention to electioneering. Four 
years is plainly too short a period to give any 
President a chance to do justice either to 

[25] 



AMERICA 



himself or to the nation which entrusted him 
with his heavy responsibilities. Presidential 
elections are national necessities, but the less 
frequently they occur the better for the general 
welfare of the country. Those who have 
been in the United States during campaign 
years, and have seen the complicated working 
of the political machinery, and all its serious 
consequences, will, I feel convinced, agree 
with what I say. During the greater part of 
the year in which a President has to be elected 
the entire nation is absorbed in the event, 
all the people, both high and low, being more 
or less keenly interested in the issue, and the 
preparations leading up to it. They seem to 
put everything else in the shade, and to give 
more attention to this than to anything else. 
Politicians and officials who have a personal 
interest in the result, will devote their whole 
time and energy to the work. Others who 
are less active, still, directly or indirectly, 
take their share in the electioneering. Cam- 
paign funds have to be raised and large sums 
of money are disbursed in many directions. 
All this sadly interrupts business; it not only 
takes many business men from their more 
legitimate duties, but it prevents merchants 
and large corporations from embarking in new 
enterprises, and so incidentally limits the de- 

[26] 



GOVERNMENT 



mand for labor. In short, the whole nation is 
practically hurled into a state of bustle and 
excitement, and the general trade of the 
country is seriously affected. A young man 
in Washington,, who was engaged to be 
married, once told me that he was too busy 
to think of marriage until the election was 
over. 

If the French system were followed, and 
the President were elected by a majority of 
the combined votes of the Senate and the 
House of Representatives, the inconveniences, 
the excitements and expense above enumer- 
ated might be avoided, but I think the people 
of America would rather endure these evils 
than be deprived of the pleasure of electing 
their President themselves. The alternate 
remedy, so far as I can see, is to extend the 
presidential term to, say, six or seven years, 
without any chance of a re-election. If this 
proposal were adopted, the President would 
be more free and independent, he would not be 
haunted by the bugbear of losing his position 
by temporarily displeasing his political friends, 
he could give his undivided attention, as he 
cannot do now, to federal affairs, and work 
without bias or fear, and without interruption, 
for the welfare of his nation. He would have 
more chance of really doing something for his 

[27] 



AMERICA 



country which was worth while. A further 
advantage is that the country would not be 
so frequently troubled with the turmoil and 
excitement arising from the presidential elec- 
tion. If I were allowed to prophecy, I 
should say that the young Republic of China, 
profiting by the experiences of France and 
America, will most likely adopt the French 
system of electing its President, or develop 
a system somewhat similar to it. 

One of the defects in the American way of 
government is the spoils system, in accordance 
with the maxim, "To the victor belongs the 
spoils." The new President has the right of 
dismissing a large number of the holders of 
Federal Offices, and to appoint in their places 
his friends, or men of his party who have 
rendered it services, or who have otherwise 
been instrumental in getting him elected. I 
am told that thousands of officials are turned 
out in this way every four years. President 
Jackson introduced the practice, and almost 
every succeeding President has continued it. 
This spoils system has been adopted by almost 
every state and municipality; it forms indeed 
the corner-stone of practical politics in the 
United States. In every country, all over 
the world, there are cases where positions and 
places of emolument have been obtained 

[28] 



GOVERNMENT 



through influential friends, but to dismiss 
public servants who are doing useful work, for 
no better reason than simply to make room 
for others, is very bad for the civil service, 
and for the country it serves. Attempts to 
remedy these evils have been made within 
recent years by the introduction of what is 
called "Civil Service Reform," by which a 
candidate is appointed to a post after an ex- 
amination, and the term of his service is fixed. 
If this is to be strictly adhered to in all cases, 
the President will be, to a great extent, 
deprived of the means of rewarding his 
political friends. In that case I doubt if the 
professional politicians and wire pullers will 
be so active and arduous as they have hitherto 
been, as the chief aim in securing the election 
of the nominee will have been taken away. 
Great credit is due to President Taft for his 
courage and impartiality, in that after assum- 
ing the duties of the high office to which he 
was elected, he gave appointments to men 
according to their ability, irrespective of party 
claims, and even went so far as to invite one 
or two gentlemen of known ability, who 
belonged to the opposite party, to become 
members of his Cabinet. 

In America men are not anxious for official 
offices. Men possessing talent and ability, 

[29] 



AMERICA 



with business acumen, are in great demand, 
and can distinguish themselves in their several 
professions in various ways; they can easily 
attain a position of wealth and influence, and 
so such men keep out of politics. It must 
not, however, be inferred from this that the 
government officials in America are incom- 
petent. On the contrary I gladly testify from 
my personal experience that the work done 
by them is not only efficient, but that, taken 
as a whole, they compare most favorably 
with any other body of government officials 
in Europe. Still, on account of the small 
salaries paid, it is not to be wondered at that 
exceptionally good men cannot be induced to 
accept official positions. I have known several 
Cabinet Ministers who, after holding their 
offices for two or three years, were obliged 
to resign and resume their former business, and 
a President has been known to experience great 
difficulty in getting good and competent men 
to succeed them. 

These remarks do not apply to the President, 
not because the President's salary is large, 
for compared with what European Kings and 
Emperors receive it is very small, but because 
the position is, far and above any other, the 
largest gift the people can bestow. No one 
has ever been known to refuse a presidential 

[30] 



GOVERNMENT 



nomination. I believe anyone to whom it 
was offered would always gladly accept it. 
I have conversed with some in America who 
told me that they were heirs apparent to the 
White House, and so they are, for they are 
just as eligible candidates for the position, as 
is the Crown Prince to succeed to a throne in 
any European country. Even a lady was 
once nominated as a presidential candidate, 
although she did not obtain many votes. 

One of the things which arouses my ad- 
miration is the due observance by the people 
of the existing laws and the Constitution. 
Every one obeys them, from the President 
to the pedler, without any exception. Some- 
times, however, by a too strict and technical 
interpretation of the law, it works a hard- 
ship. Let me quote a case. According to 
Article 1, Section 6, of the Constitution, 
"no Senator or Representative shall, during 
the time for which he was elected, be ap- 
pointed to any civil office under the authority 
of the United States, which shall have been 
created, or the emoluments whereof shall 
have been increased, during such time." 
A certain Senator was appointed by the 
President to a Cabinet office, but it hap- 
pened that the salary attached to that office 
had been raised during the time he was in 

[31] 



AMERICA 



the Senate, and so it was held that he could 
draw only the salary which was allowed be- 
fore he became a Senator, and that he was 
not entitled to the increase which was sanc- 
tioned by Congress while he was in the 
Senate, although at the time he had not the 
slightest notion that the increase would 
ever affect his own pocket. 

The relation of the states to the Federal 
Government is peculiar and unique. I will 
illustrate my point by correcting a mistake 
often made by foreigners in regard to the 
different provinces of China. It is generally 
assumed by Western writers that each prov- 
ince in China is self-governed, and that the 
provincial authorities act independently and 
in defiance of the injunctions of the Peking 
Government. The facts, however, are that 
until the establishment of the Republic, all 
the officials in the Provinces were appointed 
or sanctioned by the Peking Government, 
and that by an Imperial decree even a Vice- 
roy or Governor could, at any moment, be 
changed or dismissed, and that no important 
matter could be transacted without the Im- 
perial sanction. How does this compare 
with the states in America? Every Amer- 
ican boasts that his state is independent of 
the Federal Government. All officials, from 

[32] 



GOVERNMENT 



the Governor downward, are, in every state, 
elected by the people. Each state is pro- 
vided with a Legislature consisting of a 
Senate and a House of Representatives, 
also elected by the popular vote. The state 
has very large, and almost absolute, legis- 
lative and executive powers, and is compe- 
tent to deal with all matters not reserved 
by the Constitution for the Federal Govern- 
ment. Each state is also independent of 
every other state. The criminal and civil 
laws, including all matters pertaining to 
the transfer of and the succession to prop- 
erty, as well as marriage, divorce and fiscal 
laws, are within the scope of the state ad- 
ministrations. The authorities of each state 
naturally do their best to make their own 
state as populous and prosperous as possible. 
Thus in some states the laws concerning 
divorce, corporations, and landed property, 
are more favorable than in other states. 
A person, for example, unable to obtain a 
divorce in his own state, can, without dif- 
ficulty, attain his object in another state. 
What is expressly prohibited by statute in 
one state may be perfectly legitimate in the 
neighboring state. It is the same with 
the local taxes; fees and taxes are not uni- 
form; in one state they are heavy, while in 

[33] 



AMERICA 



another they are comparatively light. A 
stranger would naturally be surprised to 
find such a condition of things in a great 
nation like America, and would wonder how 
the machinery of such a government can 
work so well. Nevertheless he will find 
that everything goes on smoothly. This 
can be explained only by the fact that the 
inhabitants of one state often remove to 
other states, and by commercial and other 
dealings and social associations they mix 
together, so that, notwithstanding the dis- 
similarity of conditions in different states, 
the people easily adapt themselves to the 
local surroundings, and, so far as I can find, 
no friction or quarrel has ever arisen between 
two states. However, would it not be better 
for all the states to appoint an interstate 
committee to revise and codify their laws 
with a view to making them uniform? 

Foreigners living in America sometimes 
find themselves at a disadvantage, owing 
to the state being independent of the con- 
trol of the Federal Government. This point 
can be better illustrated by a case which hap- 
pened some years ago in one of the states. 
A foreigner, who was the subject of a 
European country, was attacked by a mob, 
and his property destroyed. He laid his 

[34] 



GOVERNMENT 



complaint before the local authorities, but 
it appeared that he could not obtain the 
redress he sought. His consul did all he 
could for him by appealing to the local 
authorities, but without success; finally the 
matter was reported to his ambassador in 
Washington, who immediately interested him- 
self in the affair and brought it before the 
Secretary of State. The Secretary, after 
going into the facts of the case, said that 
all he could do was to write to the Governor 
of that state and request him to take the 
matter up, but the Governor, for some 
reason or other, did not take any such action 
as would have given satisfactory redress to 
the foreigner. His ambassador made fre- 
quent appeals to the Secretary of State, but 
the Secretary was powerless, as the Consti- 
tution does not empower the Federal Govern- 
ment to interfere in state matters. This 
seems a blemish in the administration of 
foreign affairs in the United States of 
America. Suppose a foreigner should be 
ill-treated or murdered in a state, and no 
proper redress be given, the Federal Govern- 
ment cannot send its officers to arrest the 
culprit. All it can do is to ask the Governor 
of that state to take action, and if he fail 
to do so there is no remedy. Fortunately 

[35] 



AMERICA 



such a case rarely happens, but for the more 
efficient carrying on of their state affairs, 
is it not better in special cases to invest the 
Federal Government with larger powers than 
those at present possessed by it? I am 
aware that this opens up a serious question; 
that Congress will be very reluctant to con- 
fer on the Federal Government any power 
to interfere in the state affairs, knowing 
that the states would not tolerate such an 
interference; but as there is a large and ever 
increasing number of aliens residing in the 
United States, it naturally follows that riots, 
and charges of ill treatment of foreigners 
now and then do occur. Now state officials 
can, as a rule, be trusted to deal with these 
matters fairly, but where local prejudice 
against a class of aliens runs high, is it not 
advisable to leave to the Federal officials, 
who are disinterested, the settlement of such 
cases? For the sake of cordial foreign re- 
lations, and to avoid international compli- 
cations, this point, I venture to suggest, 
should be seriously considered by the Fed- 
eral and the State Governments. 

The question as to what form of govern- 
ment should be adopted by any country is 
not easy to decide. The people of America 
would no doubt claim that their system is 

[36] 



GOVERNMENT 



the best, while the people of the monarchial 
governments in Europe would maintain that 
theirs is preferable. This is mostly a mat- 
ter of education, and people who have been 
accustomed to their own form of government 
naturally like it best. There are communi- 
ties who have been long accustomed to the 
old system of monarchial government, with 
their ancient traditions and usages. There 
are other communities, with a different polit- 
ical atmosphere, where all the people share 
in the public affairs of State. It would be 
manifestly improper to introduce a demo- 
cratic government among the former. It 
would not suit their tastes nor fit in with 
their ideas. What is good for one nation 
is not necessarily good for another. Each 
system of government has its good points, 
provided that they are faithfully and justly 
carried out. The aim to secure the happi- 
ness and comfort of the people and to pro- 
mote the peace and prosperity of the nation 
should always be kept in view. As long 
as these objects can be secured it does not 
matter much whether the government is 
monarchial, republican, or something else. 

It may pertinently be asked why China 
has become a Republic, since from time 
immemorial she has had a monarchial form 

[37] 



AMERICA 



of government. The answer is that the 
conditions and circumstances in China are 
peculiar, and are different from those pre- 
vailing in Japan and other countries. In 
Japan it is claimed that the Empire was 
founded by the first Emperor, Jummu Tenno, 
660 B.C. and that the dynasty founded by 
him has continued ever since. It is well 
known that the Chinese Imperial family 
is of Manchu origin. The Ching dynasty 
was founded in 1644 by conquest, not by 
succession. Upon the recent overthrow of the 
Manchu dynasty it was found very difficult 
to find a Chinese, however popular and able, 
who possessed the legal right of succeeding 
to the throne. Jealousy and provincial feel- 
ings placed this suggestion absolutely be- 
yond discussion. Disagreements, frictions, 
and constant civil war would have ensued 
if any attempt had been made to establish 
a Chinese dynasty. Another fact is that a 
large majority of the intelligent people of 
China were disgusted with the system of 
monarchial government. Thus it will be 
seen that for the sake of the peace and wel- 
fare of the nation there was no other course 
for the people but to take a long jump and 
to establish the present Republic. The law 
of evolution has been very actively at work 

[38] 



GOVERNMENT 



in China, and no doubt it will be for her ulti- 
mate good, and therefore for the benefit of 
all mankind. China is now an infant re- 
public, but she will grow into a healthy and 
strong youth. Her people have the kindest 
feeling for the people of the elder republic 
across the Pacific. There are excellent 
reasons why the two republics should be in 
closer friendship. It is well known that there 
are great potentialities for the expansion 
of trade in China, and as the Philippine Is- 
lands are close to our shores, and the com- 
pletion of the Panama Canal will open a 
new avenue for the enlargement of trade 
from America, it will be to the interest of 
both nations to stretch out their hands 
across the Pacific in the clasp of good fellow- 
ship and brotherhood. When this is done, 
not only will international commerce greatly 
increase, but peace, at least in the Eastern 
Hemisphere, will be better secured than by 
a fleet of Dreadnaughts. 



[39] 



CHAPTER IV 



AMERICA AND CHINA 

AMERICA has performed great service for 
l\ the Orient and especially for China. If, 
however, the people of the latter country- 
were asked to express their candid opinion 
on the matter, the verdict would not be 
altogether pleasant, but would be given 
with mixed feelings of gratitude and regret. 
Since the formal opening of China to for- 
eign trade and commerce, people of all 
nationalities have come here, some to trade, 
some for pleasure, some to preach Chris- 
tianity, and others for other purposes. Con- 
sidering that the Chinese have a civiliza- 
tion of their own, and that their modes 
of thoughts, ideas, and habits are, in many 
respects, different from those of the western 
people, it is not surprising that frictions 
and disputes have occasionally occurred 
and that even foreign wars have been 
waged between China and the Occident, 
but it is gratifying to observe that no force 
has ever been resorted to against China by 
the United States of America. Now and 

[40] 



AMERICA AND CHINA 



then troublesome questions have arisen, but 
they have always been settled amicably. 
Indeed the just and friendly attitude taken 
by the American officials in China had so 
won the esteem and confidence of the Chinese 
Government that in 1867, on the termina- 
tion of Mr. Anson Burlingame's term as 
American Minister to Peking, he was ap- 
pointed by the Manchu Government as 
Chief of a special mission to America and 
Europe. In that capacity he performed 
valuable services for China, although his 
work was unfortunately cut short by his 
untimely death. The liberal and generous 
treatment accorded to the Chinese students 
in America is another source of satisfaction. 
They have been admitted freely to all educa- 
tional institutions, and welcomed into Amer- 
ican families. In whatever school or college 
they enter they are taught in the same way 
as the American boys and girls, and enjoy 
equal opportunities of learning all that the 
American students learn. 1 That America has 
no desire for territorial acquisition in China 
is well known. During the Boxer move- 
ment the American Government took the 

1 1 need hardly say that our students are also well treated in 
England, France, Germany, Japan, and other countries in Europe, 
but I am dealing in this chapter with America. 

[41] 



AMERICA 



lead in initiating the policy of maintaining 
the open door, and preserving the integrity 
of China, a policy to which the other great 
powers readily consented. It was well known 
at the time, and it is no breach of confi- 
dence to mention the fact here, that Mr. John 
Hay, American Secretary of State, with 
the permission of President McKinley, 
was quite willing that America's indemnity 
demanded from China as her share of the com- 
pensation for losses sustained during the 
Boxer upheaval, should be reduced by one- 
half, provided the other powers would con- 
sent to similar reductions. Unfortunately, 
Mr. Hay's proposal could not be carried out 
for want of unanimity. However, to show 
the good faith, and the humane and just 
policy of America, she has since voluntarily 
refunded to China a considerable portion 
of her indemnity, being the surplus due to 
her after payment of the actual expenses 
incurred. This is the second occasion on 
which she has done this, although in the 
previous case the refund was smaller. These 
are some of the instances for which the 
people of China have good reasons to be 
grateful to America and her people. 

There is, however, another side to the 
picture; the Chinese students in America, 

[42] 



AMERICA AND CHINA 



who may be roughly calculated by the 
thousands, and whose number is annually 
increasing, have been taught democratic prin- 
ciples of government. These could not bnt 
be detrimental to the welfare of the late 
Manchu Government. They have read the 
history of how the American people gained 
their independence, and naturally they have 
been imbued with the idea of inaugurating 
a similar policy in China. Chinese mer- 
chants, traders, and others who have been 
residing in America, seeing the free and in- 
dependent manner in which the American 
people carry on their government, learned, 
of course, a similar lesson. These people 
have been an important factor in the recent 
overthrow of the Manchu dynasty. Added 
to this, the fact that America had afforded 
a safe refuge for political offenders was 
another cause of dissatisfaction to the Man- 
chus. Thus it will be seen that the Man- 
chu Government, from their point of view, 
have had many reasons for entertaining un- 
favorable sentiments toward America. 

This view I need hardly say is not shared 
by the large majority of Chinese. Persons 
who have committed political offenses in 
their own country find protection not only in 
America but in all countries in Europe, 

[43] 



AMERICA 



Japan, and other civilized lands. It is an 
irony of fate that since the establishment of 
the Chinese Republic, Manchu and other 
officials under the old regime, now find secure 
asylums in Hongkong, Japan, and Tsingtao, 
while hundreds of ex-Manchu officials have 
fled to the foreign settlements of Shanghai, 
Tientsin, and other treaty ports, so reluctantly 
granted by the late Manchu Government. 
Thus the edge of their complaint against 
America's policy in harboring political ref- 
ugees has been turned against themselves, 
and the liberality against which they protested 
has become their protection. 

The more substantial cause for dissatisfac- 
tion with the United States is, I grieve to say, 
her Chinese exclusion policy. As long as her 
discriminating laws against the Chinese remain 
in force a blot must remain on her otherwise 
good name, and her relations with China, 
though cordial, cannot be perfect. It is 
beyond the scope of this chapter to deal with 
this subject exhaustively, but in order to 
enable my readers to understand the exact 
situation it is necessary to supply a short 
historical summary. In 1868, on account of 
the pressing need of good laborers for the 
construction of railways and other public 
works in America, the Governments of China 

[44] 



AMERICA AND CHINA 



and the United States, concluded a treaty 
which provided that "Chinese subjects vis- 
iting or residing in the United States shall 
enjoy the same privileges, immunities, and ex- 
emptions in respect to travel or residence as 
may be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of 
the most favored nation." It was a treaty 
negotiated by that great American statesman, 
Secretary Seward, and announced by the 
President of the United States to Congress as 
a "liberal and auspicious treaty." It was 
welcomed by the United States as a great 
advance in their international relations. It 
had also the double significance of having been 
negotiated by a Chinese special embassy, of 
which a distinguished American diplomat, 
Mr. Anson Burlingame, who was familiar with 
the wishes and interests of the American 
people, was the head. 

But within a few years the labor unions on 
the Pacific coast began to object to the com- 
petition of Chinese laborers. Soon after- 
ward the Chinese Government, to its intense 
surprise, was informed that the President of 
the United States had delegated a commission 
to come to Peking to solicit an abrogation of 
the treaty clause to which reference has been 
made. The Chinese Government was natu- 
rally unwilling to abrogate a treaty which had 

[45] 



AMERICA 



been urged on her by the United States with 
so much zeal, and which had so lately been 
entered upon on both sides with such high 
hopes. Long and tedious negotiations ensued, 
and finally a short treaty was concluded, the 
first and second Articles of which are as 
follows : 

Article I 

"Whenever in the opinion of the Govern- 
ment of the United States, the coming of 
Chinese laborers to the United States, or their 
residence therein, affects or threatens to affect 
the interests of that country, or to endanger 
the good order of the said country or of any 
locality within the territory thereof, the 
Government of China agrees that the Govern- 
ment of the United States may regulate, limit, 
or suspend such coming or residence, but may 
not absolutely prohibit it. The limitation 
or suspension shall be reasonable and shall 
apply only to Chinese who may go to the 
United States as laborers, other classes not 
being included in the limitations. Legislation 
taken in regard to Chinese laborers will be of 
such a character only as is necessary to enforce 
the regulation, limitation, or suspension of 
immigration, and immigrants shall not be 
subject to personal maltreatment or abuse." 

[46] 



AMERICA AND CHINA 



Article II 

"Chinese subjects, whether proceeding to 
the United States as teachers, students, mer- 
chants, or from curiosity, together with their 
body and household servants, and Chinese 
laborers who are now in the United States 
shall be allowed to go and come of their own 
free will and accord, and shall be accorded all 
the rights, privileges, immunities, and ex- 
ceptions which are accorded to the citizens 
and subjects of the most favored nations." 

It would seem reasonable to expect that in 
yielding so fully to the wishes of the United 
States in this second negotiation the Chinese 
Government would not be called upon to make 
any further concessions in the interests or at 
the demand of the labor unions on the Pacific 
coast, but in this China was disappointed. 
Within a period of less than ten years an 
urgent application was made by the American 
Secretary of State for a new treaty amended 
so as to enable the Congress of the United 
States to still further restrict the privileges of 
Chinese laborers who had come to the United 
States. And when the Chinese Government 
hesitated to consent to the withdrawal of 
rights which the United States granted to the 
subjects of other Governments, Congress 

[47] 



AMERICA 



passed the Scott Act of 1888 prohibiting any 
Chinese person from entering the United 
States except Chinese officials, teachers, stu- 
dents, merchants or travellers for pleasure or 
curiosity and forbidding also Chinese laborers 
in the United States, after having left, from 
returning thereto. This, in the words of 
Hon. J. W. Foster, ex-Secretary of State and 
a distinguished international lawyer, "was a 
deliberate violation of the Treaty of 1880 and 
was so declared by the Supreme Court of the 
United States." In order to save the Execu- 
tive of the United States from embarrassment, 
the Chinese Government, contrary to its own 
sense of justice, and of international comity, 
for a third time yielded to the wishes of the 
United States, and concluded the amended 
treaty of 1894 which gave Congress additional 
power of legislation respecting Chinese labor- 
ers. By Article I of this treaty it was agreed 
that for a term of ten years the coming of Chi- 
nese laborers to the United States should be 
absolutely prohibited. Article III distinctly 
provided that "the provisions of this conven- 
tion shall not affect the right at present 
enjoyed of Chinese subjects, being officials, 
teachers, students, merchants, or travellers 
for curiosity or pleasure, but not laborers, of 
coming to the United States and residing 

[48] 



AMERICA AND CHINA 



therein." Thus it is clear that the prohibi- 
tion affects only laborers, and not the other 
classes of Chinese. For a few years after the 
signing of this convention this was the view 
adopted and acted upon by the immigration 
officials, but afterward they changed their 
attitude, and the foregoing Article has since 
been interpreted to mean that only the above- 
mentioned five classes can be admitted into 
the United States, and that all the other 
classes of Chinese, however respectable and 
honorable, must be refused admission. Will 
my readers believe that a Chinese banker, 
physician, lawyer, broker, commercial agent, 
scholar or professor could all be barred out of 
the United States of America under the 
provisions of this convention? In the face 
of the plain language of the text it seems too 
absurd and unreasonable to be contemplated, 
and yet it is a fact. 

This convention was proclaimed in Decem- 
ber, 1894. According to its provisions, it was 
to remain in force only for a period of ten 
years, but that if six months before the end of 
that period neither Power should give notice 
of denunciation it should be extended for 
a similar period. Such notice was, however, 
given by China to the United States and 
accordingly the convention expired in Decern- 

[49] 



AMERICA 



ber, 1904, and is now no longer in force. No 
serious attempt has since been made by the 
United States Government to negotiate a 
new treaty regarding Chinese laborers, so the 
customs and immigration officials continue to 
prohibit Chinese laborers from coming to 
America by virtue of the law passed by 
Congress. It will be seen that by the treaty 
of 1868, known as the "Burlingame Treaty," 
the United States Government formally agreed 
that Chinese subjects, visiting or residing in 
the United States, should enjoy the same 
privileges and immunities as were enjoyed by 
the citizens or subjects of the most favored 
nation; that being so, and as the convention 
of 1894 has expired, according to the legal 
opinion of Mr. John W. Foster, and other 
eminent lawyers, the continuation of the ex- 
clusion of Chinese laborers and the restrictions 
placed upon Chinese merchants and others 
seeking admission to the United States are 
not only without international authority but 
in violation of treaty stipulations. 

The enforcement of the exclusion laws 
against Chinese in the Hawaiian and Philippine 
Islands is still more inexcusable. The com- 
plaint in America against the immigration of 
Chinese laborers was that such immigration 
was detrimental to white labor, but in those 

[50] 



AMERICA AND CHINA 



Islands there has been no such complaint; 
on the contrary the enforcement of the law 
against the Chinese in Hawaii has been, and 
is, contrary to the unanimous wish of the 
local Government and the people. Free 
intercourse and immigration between those 
Islands and China have been maintained for 
centuries. What is most objectionable and 
unfair is that the Chinese should be singled 
out for discrimination, while all other Asiatics 
such as Japanese, Siamese, and Malays are 
allowed to enter America and her colonies 
without restraint. It is my belief that the 
gross injustice that has been inflicted upon the 
Chinese people by the harsh working of the 
exclusion law is not known to the large 
majority of the American people, for I am 
sure they would not allow the continuation of 
such hardships to be suffered by those who are 
their sincere friends. China does not wish 
special treatment, she only asks that her 
people shall be treated in the same way as 
the citizens or subjects of other countries. 
Will the great American nation still refuse to 
consent to this? 

To solve the problem of immigration in a 
manner that would be satisfactory to all 
parties is not an easy task, as so many conflict- 
ing interests are involved. But it is not 

[51] 



AMERICA 



impossible. If persons interested in this ques- 
tion be really desirous of seeing it settled and 
are willing to listen to reasonable proposals, 
I believe that a way may be found for its 
solution. There is good reason for my opti- 
mistic opinion. Even the Labor Unions, 
unless I am mistaken, would welcome an 
amicable settlement of this complicated ques- 
tion. In 1902, while at Washington, I was 
agreeably surprised to receive a deputation of 
the leaders of the Central Labor Union of 
Binghamton, New York, inviting me to pay 
a visit there and to deliver an address. As I 
did not wish to disappoint them I accepted 
their invitation. During my short stay there, 
I was very cordially and warmly received, 
and most kindly treated not only by the local 
authorities and inhabitants, but by the mem- 
bers of the Labor Union and the working men 
also. I found that the Union leaders and the 
working men were most reasonable, their 
platform being, as far as I could learn, to 
have no cheap labor competition but not 
necessarily discrimination against any race. 
If the United States Government would ap- 
point a commission composed of members 
representing the Labor Unions, manufacturers 
and merchants, to treat with a similar com- 
mission nominated by the Chinese Govern- 



AMERICA AND CHINA 



ment, the whole question in all its bearings 
could be discussed, and I feel certain that 
after free and candid exchange of views, the 
joint Commissioners would be able to arrive 
at a scheme which would put at rest once for 
all the conflicting claims, and settle the matter 
satisfactorily to both China and the United 
States. 

When this disagreeable difference has been 
removed, the friendly relations between the 
two Republics, cordial even while one was 
yet an Empire, will leave nothing to be desired 
and cannot but help to largely affect the trade 
between the two countries and to contribute 
to the peace of the Far East. 



[53] 



CHAPTER V 



AMERICAN EDUCATION 

OUT of a total population of 91,972,266 in 
the United States there were, in 1910, 17,- 
506,175 pupils enrolled. Few nations can show 
such a high percentage of school students. 
The total number of teachers was 506,040. 
Educational efficiency on such a scale can 
be maintained only by a large expenditure of 
money, and from the statistics of education 
I find that the sum received from tuition 
fees was $14,687,192 gold, from productive 
funds $11,592,113 gold, and from the United 
States Government $4,607,298 gold, making 
a total of $70,667,865 gold. I question 
whether any other nation can produce such 
an excellent example in the cause of education. 

In every state there are very many schools, 
both public and private. There are public 
schools in every town, and even the smallest 
village has its school, while in some agricul- 
tural states, such as Wyoming, where the 
population is very scattered, teachers are 
provided by the government to teach in the 
farmers' homes wherever three or four chil- 

[54] 



EDUCATION 



dren can be gathered together. The public 
schools are free and open to all, but in some 
towns in the Southern States special schools 
are provided for the colored people. Having 
such facilities for gaining knowledge, it natu- 
rally follows that the Americans, as a whole, 
are an educated people. By this I mean the 
native American, not the recent immigrants 
and negroes, but even as regards the latter a 
reservation should be made, for some of the 
negroes, such as Booker T. Washington and 
others, have become eminent through their 
learning and educational work. 

The distinguishing feature of the school 
system is that it is cheap and comprehensive. 
In the primary and high schools the boys and 
girls, whether they come from the wealthy or 
aristocratic families, or from more straitened 
homes, are all studying together in the same 
class-room, and it is known that a President 
sent his son to study in a public school. There 
is, therefore, no excuse for even the poorest 
man in America being an illiterate. If he 
wishes he can obtain a degree in a university 
without difficulty. Many of the state uni- 
versities admit the children of citizens of the 
state free, while their tuition fees for outsiders 
are exceptionally low, so that it is within the 
power of the man of the most moderate means 

[55] 



AMERICA 



to give his son a university education. 
Many of the college or university students, 
in order to enable them to go through their 
courses of study, do outside jobs after their 
lecture hours, and perform manual, or even 
menial work, during the vacations. I fre- 
quently met such students in summer resorts 
acting as hotel waiters and found them clean, 
attentive, and reliable. During a visit to 
Harvard University, President Eliot took me 
to see the dining-hall. Many students were 
taking their lunch at the time. I noticed 
that the waiters were an unusually clean set 
of young men, and upon inquiry was in- 
formed that they were students of the Uni- 
versity, and that when a waiter was wanted 
many students applied, as the poorer students 
were glad to avail themselves of the oppor- 
tunity to earn some money. 

Honest labor, though menial, is not con- 
sidered degrading, and no American of educa- 
tion and refinement is above doing it. In 
some of the states in the East, owing to the 
scarcity of servants, families do their own 
cooking and other household work. Some 
few years ago I was on a visit to Ashburnham, 
Massachusetts, and was surprised to find 
that my hostess not only did the cooking but 
also cleaned my room. I was invited to a 

[56] 



EDUCATION 



formal luncheon by a professor, and to my 
astonishment his two daughters waited at the 
table. This is not unlike what occurs in 
some parts of China in the interior. The 
members of families, although in good circum- 
stances, do their own household work. In 
some towns, not far from Canton, wealthy 
farmers and country gentlemen hire out their 
sons as menials, so that these youngsters, 
when they have grown up, shall know the 
value of money and not squander the family 
wealth. I cite a typical case of a millionaire 
who had only one son. In order to make 
him appreciate the worth of money he took 
his boy to Canton, and allowed him to be 
hired out as an ordinary servant. The boy 
was ordered by his master to look after 
a certain part of the house, and also to take 
care of a little garden. One day he carelessly 
broke a valuable gold-fish jar much prized 
by the family. His master naturally became 
enraged and reproached him for his negligence. 
The young man coolly told him that if he 
would come to his father's house he could 
replace the broken vessel by making his own 
selection from his father's collection of gold- 
fish jars. This irritated the master, who 
thought that the lad was adding insult to 
injury. However, ultimately, his master was 

[57] 



AMERICA 



persuaded to go with him to his father's house, 
and to his great astonishment he found there 
many gold-fish jars which were more precious 
than that which the lad had broken. House- 
hold work, however mean it may be, is not 
considered degrading in China, but the dif- 
ference between China and America is that 
in America the people are compelled to do it 
from necessity, while in China it is resorted to 
as a matter of policy to make the young men 
realize the value of money, and not spend it 
wastefully. 

The curriculum prescribed in the schools 
covers a wide range of subjects, and the 
graduates are well equipped to face the battle 
of life. Not only are drawing, sketching and 
other fine arts taught, but also carpentry and 
other trades. I was once shown a fairly made 
box which was the product of a very small 
boy. I did not at first perceive the use of 
teaching a boy to do such work in school, 
but I learned that its object was to instruct 
the pupil how to think and arrange his mate- 
rials systematically. 

With the exception of those schools estab- 
lished by Christian societies, or endowed by 
religious sects, all educational institutions, 
especially those established by the state au- 
thorities are secular. Religion is not taught. 

[58) 



EDUCATION 



Neither the Bible nor any other religious 
work is used in the schoolroom. The presi- 
dents, professors, and tutors may be strict 
churchmen, or very religious people, but, as a 
rule, they are not permitted to inculcate their 
religious views on the students. The minds 
of the young are most susceptible, and if no 
moral principles are impressed upon them at 
school or college they are apt to go astray. 
It should be remembered that men of educa- 
tion without moral principles are like a ship 
without an anchor. Ignorant and illiterate 
people infringe the law because they do not 
know any better, and their acts of depredation 
are clumsy and can be easily found out, but 
when men of education commit crimes these 
are so skilfully planned and executed that it 
is difficult for the police to unravel and detect 
them. It has been known that frauds and 
forgeries perpetrated by such unscrupulous 
persons were so cleverly designed that they 
bore the evidence of superior education, and 
almost of genius. The more a man is edu- 
cated the more is it necessary, for the welfare 
of the state, to instruct him how to make a 
proper use of his talents: Education is like 
a double-edged sword. It may be turned to 
dangerous usages if it is not properly 
handled. 

[59] 



AMERICA 



As there is no established church in the 
United States, and in view of the numberless 
different sects, it is not advisable to permit 
any particular phase of religion to be taught. 
But why not consent to allow the cardinal 
principles of morality to be taught in every 
school ? The following may serve as examples : 

(1) Honesty is the best policy. 

(2) Honor thy father and thy mother. 

(3) Universal brotherhood. 

(4) Love of mankind. 

(5) Charity to all. 

(6) Purity in thought and action. 

(7) Pure food makes a pure body. 

(8) Happiness consists of health and a 

pure conscience. 

(9) Live and let live. 

(10) Respect a man for his virtues, not 

for his money or position. 

(11) Fiat justitia, ruat ccelum (Let justice 

be done, though the Heavens should 
fall). 

(12) Bear no malice against anyone. 

(13) Be equitable and just to all men. 

(14) Liberty and freedom but not license. 

(15) Do not unto others what ye would 

not that others should do unto you. 
I have jotted down the above just as they 
occurred to me while writing. They can 

[60] 



EDUCATION 



easily be amplified, and be made the basis of 
an ethical instruction in all the schools. In 
any case, every nation should aim at the 
highest standard of morals. 

Co-education in the United States is not so 
unpopular as in some other countries, and it 
is increasing in favor. In all the primary 
schools, and in most of the high schools, boys 
and girls study in the same class-room, and 
girls are admitted as students even in some 
colleges and universities. This principle of 
admitting the fair sex to equal educational 
privileges is slowly but surely being recognized 
everywhere. In some universities the authori- 
ties have gone half-way; lectures are given to 
the girl students in separate rooms, or separate 
buildings, or halls, are provided for the girl 
students. With regard to the teaching staff, 
in the primary schools nearly all the teachers 
are women, and in the high schools their 
number is at least half, if not more. In some 
of the universities there are lady professors or 
tutors. It goes without saying that girls have 
the natural talent for learning everything 
that boys can learn. The objections raised 
by the opponents of co-education seem to rest 
chiefly upon the danger of the intellectual or 
physical overstrain of girls during adolescence, 
and upon the unequal rate of development of 

[61] 



AMERICA 



boys and girls during the secondary school pe- 
riod. It is further alleged that in mixed schools 
the curriculum is so prescribed that the girls' 
course of study is more or less adapted to that 
of the boys, with the result that it cannot have 
the artistic and domestic character which is 
suitable for the majority of girls; but why 
should not the curriculum be arranged in such 
a way as to suit both sexes? Is it not good 
for both to learn the same subjects? That 
which is good for a boy to learn is it not 
equally advisable for a girl to know, and vice 
versa? Will not such a policy create mutual 
sympathy between the sexes ? The opponents 
of the co-education policy assert that it 
makes the girls masculine, and that it has a 
tendency to make the boys a little feminine. 
It cannot, however, be doubted that the 
system reduces the cost of education, such as 
the duplication of the teaching staff, labora- 
tories, libraries, and other equipment. 

It is objected that the system has done 
more than anything else to rob marriage of 
its attractions, by divesting man of most of 
his old-time glamour and romance. It is 
claimed that this early contact with the other 
sex, on a footing of equality, and the manner 
in which the majority of the girl students more 
than maintain their intellectual standing with 

[62] 



EDUCATION 



the boys, has tended to produce that contempt 
of the much-vaunted superiority of man, that, 
as a rule, is reserved for those post-nuptial 
discoveries which make marriage such an 
interesting venture. But they forget that 
marriages are frequently contracted in places 
where girls and boys are taught together, and 
where they have had ample opportunities for 
knowing each other intimately, and that ex- 
perience proves that such marriages are happy 
and lasting unions. It is interesting to ob- 
serve, however, that as the number of edu- 
cational institutions has increased, the num- 
ber of unmarried women has been corre- 
spondingly augmented. It is easy to ex- 
plain this by the fact that a large number of 
women earn their own livelihood by going into 
business and the professions. As they become 
more educated, and are allowed to participate 
in many of the same privileges as men, it is 
only natural that they should show their 
independence by remaining single. The same 
thing would occur in any country, and we may 
expect a like state of things in China as greater 
facilities for instruction are afforded to women. 
I do not feel alarmed at the prospect; indeed, 
I would welcome it if I could see my country- 
women acting as independently and as orderly 
as their American sisters. 

[63] 



AMERICA 



The games and sports sanctioned and 
encouraged in schools and universities are 
useful, in that they afford diversion of the 
pupils' minds from their school work. They 
should not, however, be indulged in in such 
a way as to interfere with their studies. 
Take, as an example, boat racing; several 
months of preparation are necessary before 
the event takes place, and during a great 
portion of this time the students do not 
think much of their studies; they are all 
mad with excitement. The contest between 
the two rival parties is very keen; they have 
but one thought, and that is to win the race. 
In this way, at least so it seems to me, the 
main object of recreation is entirely lost 
sight of; it becomes no longer an amusement, 
but labor and work. I am told that the 
coxswain and the other members of the 
boat race generally have to take a long rest 
when the race is over, which clearly shows 
that they have been overworking. I favor 
all innocent games and sports which mean 
recreation and diversion, but if it be thought 
that without a contest games would lose their 
relish and their fun, then I would suggest that 
the aim should be the exhibition of a perfect 
body and absolute health. Let the students, 
when they come to the recreation ground, 

[64] 



EDUCATION 



indulge in any sport they please, but make 
them feel that it is "bad form" to over- 
strain, or do anything which, even tempo- 
rarily, mars the perfect working of their 
physical organisms. Let each student so 
train himself as to become healthy and 
strong both physically and mentally, and 
the one who, through reasonable and whole- 
some exercises, is able to present himself in 
the most perfect health should be awarded 
the highest prize. 



[65] 



CHAPTER VI 



AMERICAN BUSINESS METHODS 

IF I should be asked what is most essential 
for the successful carrying on of business 
in America I would say advertising. A busi- 
ness man in America who intends to succeed 
must advertise in the daily, weekly, and 
monthly papers, and also have big posters 
in the streets. I do not believe any up-to- 
date merchant in America fails to do this. 
Every book and magazine contains many 
advertisements; sometimes fully half of a 
big magazine is covered with notices or 
pictures of articles for sale. Wherever you 
go the inevitable poster confronts you; and 
even when you look out of the window of 
the train you see large sign-boards announ- 
cing some article of trade. The newer the 
brand the bigger the picture. If when you 
get into a street-car you look around you 
will see nothing but advertisements of all 
kinds and sorts, and if you answer an adver- 
tisement you will keep on receiving notices 
of the matter about which you inquired. 
Even now I receive letters urging me to buy 

[66] 



BUSINESS METHODS 



something or other about which I sent a 
letter of inquiry when I was in America. 
At night, if you stroll round the town you 
will be amazed by the ingenious and clever 
signs which the alert minds of the trades 
people have invented, such as revolving 
electric lights forming the name of the ad- 
vertiser with different colors, or a figure 
or shape of some sort illustrating his wares. 
But even this is not thought sufficient. Cir- 
culars are often sent to everyone, making 
special offers, setting forth forceful reasons 
why the commodity advertised is indispen- 
sable. Certain stores make it a point to 
announce cheap sales once or twice a year, 
with from 10 to 25 per cent, reduction. It 
should be noted that no tradesman volun- 
tarily sells his goods at a loss, so that if dur- 
ing a sale he can give as much as 25 per cent, 
discount we can easily calculate the percentage 
of profit he generally makes. There are 
cases where men who started as petty dealers 
have, after a few years, become millionaires. 

To show the importance of advertising I 
cite the well-known sanitary drink which 
is a substitute for tea and coffee, and which 
by extensive advertising in almost every 
paper published in every country has now 
become a favorite beverage. The proprietor 

[67] 



AMERICA 



is now a multi-millionaire and I am told that 
he spends more than a million dollars a year 
in advertising. 

Another thing inseparable from American 
business is the telephone. A telephone is 
a part of every well-appointed house, every 
partner's desk is provided with a telephone, 
through which he talks to his clients and 
transacts business with them. In all official 
departments in Washington scores of tele- 
phones are provided; even the secretary of 
the department and the chief of the bureau 
give orders by telephone. It goes without 
saying that this means of communication 
is also found in the home of almost every 
well-to-do family. The invention of a tele- 
phone is a great blessing to mankind; it 
enables friends to talk to each other at a 
distance without the trouble of calling. 
Sweethearts can exchange their sweet noth- 
ings, and even proposals of marriage have 
been made and accepted through the tele- 
phone. However, one is subjected to fre- 
quent annoyances from wrong connections 
at the Central Office, and sometimes grave 
errors are made. Once, through a serious 
blunder, or a mischievous joke, I lost a din- 
ner in my Legation in Washington. My 
valet received a telephone message from a 

[68] 



BUSINESS METHODS 



lady friend inviting me to dine at her house. 
I gladly accepted the invitation, and at the 
appointed time drove to her home, only to 
find that there was no dinner-party on, and 
that I should have to go hungry. 

With some trades, in order to create a 
new market, commercial travellers or "drum- 
mers" give their goods away for nothing. 
Experience has proved that what they lose 
at the start they recover in the course of 
time, receiving in addition triple or tenfold 
more business than the cost of the original 
outlay. These commercial agents travel 
through all sections of the country to solicit 
business; they call upon those who can give 
them orders; they look up those who are 
engaged in similar businesses to their own, 
and, if they are retailers, they invite their 
orders, or ask them to become sub-agents. 
These gentlemen practically live on the trains : 
they eat, sleep, and do their business while 
travelling. One of them told me that in 
one month he had covered 38,000 miles, 
and that he had not been back to his firm 
for three months. 

There is no doubt that the American 
people are active, strenuous workers. They 
will willingly go any distance, and undertake 
any journey, however arduous, if it promises 

[69] 



AMERICA 



business; they seem to be always on the go, 
and they are prepared to start anywhere at 
a moment's notice. An American who called 
on me a short time ago in Shanghai told me 
that when he left his house one morning 
at New York, he had not the slightest notion 
he was going to undertake a long journey 
that day; but that when he got to his office 
his boss asked him if he would go to China 
on a certain commission. He accepted the 
responsibility at once and telephoned to his 
wife to pack up his things. Two hours later 
he was on a train bound for San Francisco 
where he boarded a steamer for China. 
The same gentleman told me that this trip 
was his second visit to China within a few 
months. 

American salesmen are clever and capable, 
and well know how to recommend whatever 
they have to sell. You walk into a store 
just to look around; there may be nothing 
that you want, but the adroit manner in 
which the salesman talks, and the way in 
which he explains the good points of every 
article at which you look, makes it extremely 
difficult for you to leave the store without 
making some purchases. Salesmen and com- 
mercial travellers in the United States have 
certainly learned the art of speaking. I 

[70] 



BUSINESS METHODS 



once, however, met a remarkable exception 
to this rule in the person of an American 
gentleman who was singularly lacking in 
tact; he was in China with the intention of 
obtaining a concession, and he had nearly 
accomplished his object when he spoilt every- 
thing by his blunt speech. He said he had 
not come to China for any philanthropic 
purposes, but that he was in the country 
to make money. We all know that the 
average business man is neither a Peabody 
nor a Carnegie, but it was quite unnecessary 
for this gentleman to announce that his sole 
object was to make money out of the Chinese. 

Up to a few years ago business men in 
America, especially capitalists, had scarcely 
any idea of transacting business in China. I 
well remember the difficulty I had in raising 
a railway loan in America. It was in 1897. 
I had received positive instructions from my 
government to obtain a big loan for the 
purpose of constructing the proposed rail- 
way from Hankow to Canton. I endeav- 
ored to interest well-known bankers and 
capitalists in New York City but none of 
them would consider the proposals. They 
invariably said that their money could be 
just as easily, and just as profitably, invested 
in their own country, and with better security, 

[71] 



AMERICA 



than was obtainable in China. It was 
only after nearly twelve months of hard 
work, of careful explanation and much per- 
suasion, that I succeeded in finding a capi- 
talist who was prepared to discuss the matter 
and make the loan. Conditions have now 
changed. American bankers and others have 
found that investments in China are quite 
safe. They have sent agents to China to 
represent them in the matter of a big 
international loan, and they are now just 
as ready to lend money in China as in Europe, 
and on the same terms. In conjunction with 
the representatives of some large European 
capitalists they even formed a powerful syndi- 
cate in China, for the purpose of arranging 
loans to responsible Chinese investors. In 
the spring of 1913, however, they withdrew 
from the syndicate. 

The opportunities to make money in 
America are great and a young man with 
only fair ability, but an honest purpose, will 
always get something to do; and if he is in- 
dustrious and ready for hard work, if he 
possess courage and perseverance, he will 
most surely go forward and probably in time 
become independent. There are hundreds 
of millionaires and multi-millionaires in 
America who, in their younger days, were 

[72] 



BUSINESS METHODS 



as poor as sparrows in a snowstorm, but 
through perseverance, combined with in- 
dustrious and economical habits they have 
prospered far beyond their own expecta- 
tions. The clever methods they adopt in 
the carrying on of their business cannot 
but arouse our admiration, and Chinese mer- 
chants would do well to send some of their 
sons to America to study the various systems 
practised there. But no nation or any class 
of people is perfect, and there is one money- 
making device which seems to me not quite 
sound in principle. To increase the capital 
of a corporation new shares are sometimes 
issued, without a corresponding increase in 
the actual capital. These new shares may 
represent half, or as much of the actual 
capital as has been already subscribed. Such 
a course is usually defended by the claim 
that as the property and franchises have 
increased in value since the formation of the 
corporation the increase of the stock is neces- 
sary in order to fairly represent the existing 
capital. It is said that some railway stock 
has been "watered" in this way to an alarm- 
ing extent, so that a great deal of it is ficti- 
tious, yet though it exists only on paper it 
ranks as the equal of the genuine stock when 
the dividends are paid. Whether or not 

[73] 



AMERICA 



such an action really is justifiable, or even 
moral, I leave to the Christian clergy and 
their followers to decide. The promoters 
and directors of such concerns have at least 
hit upon a very clever method for becoming 
rich, and if the securities of the original 
shareholders are not injured, and the holders 
of the genuine and the watered stock can 
share equally without endangering the in- 
terests of all, perhaps such an action may 
be less blamable, but it is a new kind of 
proceeding to Orientals. 

I must not omit to mention, however, the 
confidence which is placed in the honesty of 
the people in general; for example, you enter 
an omnibus, you will find the driver, but no 
conductor to collect the fare. "It is up to 
you " to put the fare into a box, and if you do 
not pay no one will ask for it. Yet every 
fare is paid. I have never seen a dishonest 
man who omitted to pay. This is a remark- 
able fact which I have noticed nowhere but 
in America. I suppose it is because the 
people are not poor, and as they are always 
able to pay the fare they do so. They are too 
honest to cheat. It is certainly a good way to 
encourage people to be honest, to put them 
on their honor and then rely on their own 
sense of uprightness. 

[74] 



BUSINESS METHODS 



The most curious sight I have ever seen was 
the Stock Exchange in New York. It is used 
as a market for the purchase and sale of 
various articles, but there were no goods ex- 
posed for sale. I saw a good many people 
running about talking, yelling and howling, 
and had I not been informed beforehand what 
to expect I should have thought that the men 
were getting ready, in their excitement, for a 
general all round fight. However, I did not 
see any exchange of blows, and I did not hear 
that any blood was shed. 

Another remarkable feature of the scene was 
that I did not see a single woman there; she 
was conspicuous by her absence. Whether 
or not the rules of the Exchange allow her to 
become a member I do not know; that is a 
question for the woman suffragists to investi- 
gate, but I learned that it is a wealthy 
association consisting of 1,100 members, and 
that to become a member one must be a 
citizen of the United States of 21 years of age 
or more. The number of members is limited. 
Persons obtain membership by election, or by 
the transfer of the membership of a member 
who has resigned or died. A new member 
who is admitted by transfer pays an initia- 
tion fee of 2,000 gold dollars, in addition to a 
large fee to the transferrer, for his "seat in the 

[75] 



AMERICA 



House. ' ' A member may transfer his seat to his 
son, if the Committee of the Exchange approve, 
without charging for it; but in all cases the 
transferree pays the above-mentioned initia- 
tion fee of 2,000 gold dollars. 

The prices for these seats vary, the fluc- 
tuations being due to the upward or down- 
ward trend of the stock market. Within 
recent years the price has risen consider- 
ably, and as much as 95,000 gold dollars 
has been paid to the transferrer. This is 
much higher than the price usually paid 
by new members in Stock Exchanges in 
Europe, yet when a seat becomes vacant there 
is no lack of purchasers. It is clear that a 
seat in the "House" is very valuable to the 
holder. In the building each member has a 
stall allotted to him where he has a telephone 
for his exclusive use; this enables him to 
communicate every transaction done in the 
Exchange to his business house, and to keep 
up connections with his constituents in other 
cities. When one of his constituents, say in 
Washington, D. C, desires to buy a certain 
security the order is conveyed to him direct, 
and executed without delay. I have seen a 
transaction of this kind executed in ten 
minutes, though there was a distance of sev- 
eral hundred miles between client and broker. 

[76] 



BUSINESS METHODS 



The amount of business transacted in the 
"House" every day is enormous, aggregating 
many millions of dollars. New York also has 
other Exchanges, where different articles of 
merchandise are purchased and sold, such as 
corn, coffee, cotton, etc., and the volume of 
business transacted daily in that "Empire 
City" must be immense, and almost beyond 
calculation. 

Of course there are Exchanges in Chicago, 
Boston, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Philadelphia, 
Baltimore, Washington and other cities, all 
conducted on similar lines, but the prices are 
always governed by the quotations from New 
York. This skilful and systematic way of 
doing business is remarkable, and I am in- 
clined to believe that New York is ahead of 
many cities in South America and in Europe. 
No wonder that the services of Americans are 
required by other countries in industrial and 
technical concerns. Some years ago, when I 
was in Madrid, I noticed that the street tram- 
car was running according to the American 
system, and upon inquiry I was told it was 
controlled by an American syndicate. 

The pursuit of wealth in America is intense; 
it is apparent everywhere and seems to be the 
chief aim of the American people. Because 
of their eagerness to become rich as soon as 

[77] 



AMERICA 



possible they are all in a constant hurry. 
You may see people in the streets almost 
running to their offices, at luncheon they do 
not masticate their food, they bolt it, and in 
less than ten minutes are on their way back to 
their office again. Everyone is urged on by 
this spirit of haste, and you frequently hear 
of sudden deaths which doctors attribute to 
heart failure, or some other malady, but which 
I suspect are caused by the continual restless 
hurry and worry. People who are so unnatu- 
rally eager to get rich naturally suffer for it. 

It is the general belief that Americans do 
not live as long as Europeans. They make 
money easily and their expectations are high. 
I have known many Americans who, in my 
opinion, were wealthy people, but they them- 
selves did not think so; in fact, they said they 
were poor. Once I asked a gentleman, who 
was known to be worth half a million of gold 
dollars, whether it was not time for him to 
retire. He pooh-poohed the idea and said 
that he could not afford to give up his work. 
In reply to my inquiries he informed me that 
he would not call a man wealthy unless he 
should be possessed of one or two millions of 
dollars. With such extravagant ideas, it is 
no wonder that Americans work so hard. I 
grant that a man's mission in this world is 

[78] 



BUSINESS METHODS 



to attain happiness. According to Webster, 
happiness is "that state of being which is 
attended with enjoyment," but it is curious 
to observe what different notions people 
have as to what happiness is. I know an 
Englishman in China who by his skilful 
business management, combined with good 
luck, has amassed immense wealth; in fact, 
he is considered the richest man in the port 
where he resides. He is a bachelor, over 
seventy years old, and leads a very simple 
life. But he still goes to his office every day, 
and toils as if he had to work for a living. 
Being told that he should discontinue his 
drudgery, as at his death he would have to 
leave his large fortune to relatives who would 
probably squander it, he gave an answer 
which is characteristic of the man. "I love," 
he said, "accumulating dollars and bank 
notes, and my enjoyment is in counting them; 
if my relatives who will inherit my fortune, 
take as much pleasure in spending it as I 
have had in making it, they will be quite 
welcome to their joy." Not many people, I 
fancy, will agree with the old bachelor's view 
of life. I once suggested to a multi-millionaire 
of New York that it was time for him to retire 
from active work, leaving his sons to carry 
on his business. He told me that he would be 

[79] 



AMERICA 



unhappy without work and that he enjoyed 
the demands his business made on him each 
day. 

Many a man's life has been shortened by 
his retiring from business. It is the mind 
rather than the body that lives, and apart from 
their business these men have no thoughts 
and therefore no life. A man's idea of hap- 
piness is greatly governed by his personal 
tastes, and is influenced by his environment, 
his education and the climate. The form 
which it is to assume may vary with persons 
of different tastes and positions, but it should 
not be carried out for his own benefit solely 
and it should not be injurious to his health or 
to his intellectual and spiritual improvement, 
nor should it be detrimental to the interests 
of other people. 



[80] 



CHAPTER VII 



AMERICAN FREEDOM AND EQUALITY 

7HEN an Oriental, who, throughout his 



V V life, has lived in his own country where 
the will of his Sovereign is supreme, and the 
personal liberty of the subject unknown, first 
sets foot on the soil of the United States, he 
' breathes an atmosphere unlike anything he has 
ever known, and experiences curious sensations 
which are absolutely new. For the first time 
in his life he feels that he can do whatever he 
pleases without restraint, and that he can talk 
freely to people without fear. When he takes 
up a newspaper and reads statements about 
different persons in high positions which are 
not at all creditable to them, and learns that no 
serious consequences happen to the writers, 
he is lost in wonderment. After a little time 
he begins to understand that this is the "land 
of the free and the home of the brave," and 
that in America everybody is on an equality. 
The President, the highest official in the 
United States, is neither more nor less than a 
citizen; and should he, which is very unlikely, 
commit an offense, or do anything in con- 




[81] 



AMERICA 



travention of the law, he would be tried in a 
Court of Justice in the same manner as the 
lowest and the poorest citizen. Naturally 
the new visitor thinks this the happiest peo- 
ple on earth, and wishes that his own country 
could be governed as happily. Until that 
lucky day arrives he feels that he would 
rather stay in free America than return to 
his native land. 

One of the first lessons which is learned by 
the American child in school, and which is 
deeply impressed on its mind by its teacher, 
is that according to the Constitution all 
persons are born equal, and that no distinc- 
tion is made between sections, classes, or sects. 

No slaves, or persons under bonds, have 
been allowed in the United States since the 
abolition of slavery by President Lincoln. 
The moment a slave, or anyone in bonds, 
steps on the shores of the United States he 
is free, and no one, not even his former 
master, can deprive him of his liberty. 
America also affords an asylum for op- 
pressed people and for political offenders; 
people who have been persecuted in their 
own land, on account of their religion, or for 
political offenses, find a safe refuge in this 
country. Every year large numbers of Jews, 
and other foreigners, emigrate to America 

[82] 



FREEDOM AND EQUALITY 



for the sake of enjoying religious freedom. 
Perfect religious liberty is guaranteed to 
everyone in the United States. There is 
equal religious liberty in England, but the 
King is compelled to belong to a particular 
section of the Christian Church, whereas in 
the United States no restriction is placed 
on the religious belief of the President; thus 
one President was a Baptist, another a Uni- 
tarian, and a third a Congregationalist; and, 
if elected, a Jew, a Mohammedan, or a Con- 
fucianist could become the President. Several 
Jews have held high Federal offices; they 
have even been Cabinet Ministers. Article 
VI of the Constitution of the United States 
says: "No religious test shall ever be re- 
quired as a qualification to any office or public 
trust under the United States." 

So ingrained in the minds of the American 
people is this principle of liberty and freedom 
of action that I do not believe they would 
resign it for any consideration whatsoever. 
Once an English Duke was asked whether 
he would accept the throne of China on the 
sole condition that he must reside in the 
Palace of Peking, and act as the Chinese Em- 
perors have always been accustomed to act. 
He replied that such an exalted position of 
power and responsibility would be very great 

[83] 



AMERICA 



and tempting, but that he would on no account 
accept such an honor on such terms, as it 
would practically make him a prisoner. 
Though a subject under a monarchial form 
of government, he would not forfeit his right 
of freedom of action; and much less would a 
democratic American give up his birthright 
for any price. I knew an eminent and 
learned Judge of the Supreme Court in Wash- 
ington, who used to say that he would never 
bend his knees to any human being, and that 
to the Almighty God alone would he ever do 
homage. He no doubt acted up to his prin- 
ciples, but I much doubt if all Americans 
observe so lofty an ideal. A young lover in 
proposing to his sweetheart would not mind 
kneeling down to support his prayer. I have 
seen penitent husbands bending their knees 
to ask the forgiveness of their offended wives. 
This, however, can be explained by the fact 
that the act of kneeling is not, in such cases, 
a sign of inferiority, but the act of one equal 
asking a favor from another; still it is the 
bending of the knee which was so solemnly 
abjured by the learned Judge. 

The dislike of distinction of classes which 
arises from the principle of equality is apparent 
wherever you go in the States. The railroad 
cars are not marked first, second, or third, as 

[84] 



FREEDOM AND EQUALLTY 



they are in Europe. It is true that there are 
Pullman cars, and palace cars, with superior 
and superb accommodation, and for which the 
occupant has to pay an extra fare; but the 
outside of the car simply bears the name 
"Pullman" without indicating its class, and 
anyone who is willing to pay the fare may 
share its luxuries. I should mention that in 
some of the Southern states negroes are com- 
pelled to ride on separate cars. On one 
occasion, arriving at the railroad station in 
one of those states, I noticed there were two 
waiting-rooms, one labelled "For the White," 
and the other "For the Colored." The 
railway porter took my portmanteau to the 
room for the white, but my conscience soon 
whispered I had come to the wrong place, as 
neither of the two rooms was intended for 
people of my complexion. The street-cars 
are more democratic; there is no division 
of classes; all people, high or low, sit in the 
same car without distinction of race, color or 
sex. It is a common thing to see a workman, 
dressed in shabby clothes full of dirt, sitting 
next to a millionaire or a fashionable lady 
gorgeously clothed. Cabinet officers and their 
wives do not think it beneath their dignity to 
sit beside a laborer, or a coolie, as he is called 
in China. 

[85] 



AMERICA 



Foreign Ministers and Ambassadors coming 
to Washington soon learn to follow these 
local customs. In a European country they 
ride in coronated carriages, with two livery- 
men; but in Washington they usually 
go about on foot, or travel by the street- 
cars. I frequently saw the late Lord Paunce- 
fote, the celebrated British Ambassador to 
Washington, ride to the State Department in 
the street-car. My adoption of this demo- 
cratic way of travelling during the time I 
was in America was the cause of a complaint 
being made against me at Peking. The 
complainants were certain Chinese high offi- 
cials who had had occasion to visit the States; 
one of them had had a foreign education, 
and ought to have known better than to have 
joined in the accusation that my unpreten- 
tious manner of living was not becoming the 
dignity of a representative of China. They 
forgot that when in Rome you must do as 
the Romans do, and that to ride in a sumptu- 
ous carriage, with uniformed footmen, is in 
America not only an unnecessary expense, but 
a habit which, among such a democratic 
people as the Americans, would detract from, 
rather than add to, one's dignity. An envoy 
residing in a foreign country should be in 
touch with the people among whom he is 

[86] 



FREEDOM AND EQUALITY 



sojourning. If he put on unnecessary airs, 
there will be a coldness and lack of cordiality 
between him and the community; his sphere 
of usefulness will be curtailed, and his knowl- 
edge of the people and their country limited. 
Of course, in a European Capital, where 
every diplomat drives in a carriage, I should 
follow the example of my colleagues. But 
even in England, I frequently met high states- 
men, such, for example, as Lord Salisbury, 
walking in the streets. This unrestrained 
liberty and equality is remarkably conspicuous 
in the United States ; for instance, at the White 
House official receptions or balls in Washing- 
ton, I have seen ladies in ordinary dress, 
while on one occasion a woman appeared in 
the dress of a man. This was Doctor Mary 
Walker. 

In a democratic country, such as the United 
States, one would naturally suppose that the 
people enjoyed a greater degree of freedom 
than is possible in monarchial countries. 
But, so far from this being so, in some respects, 
they appear to be in a worse position. On my 
return journey from South America, some years 
ago, our steamer had to stay for four hours 
outside of New York harbor. We had first to 
wait for the doctor to come on board to make 
his inspection of all the passengers, then the 

[87] 



AMERICA 



Customs officials appeared and examined the 
luggage and boxes of all the passengers, and 
then, last but not the least, we had to wait for 
the immigration officers. All this necessarily 
took time, and it was not until all these in- 
spections were completed that the steamer 
was allowed to enter the harbor, and to tie up 
alongside the dock. And this occurred in the 
land of freedom and liberty! I spoke to some 
of my American fellow passengers about the 
inconvenience and delay, and though they all 
murmured they quietly submitted. Customs 
and sanitary inspection should be so conducted 
as to cause as little delay as possible. I have 
visited many countries in Europe, in South 
America, and in Asia, but I have never known 
of a ship having to stay outside the harbor of 
the port of her destination for so long a time. 

Take another case; some months since, I 
wished, in compliance with the request of a 
lady in America, to send her a chow-dog. A 
mutual friend was willing to take it to her, but, 
upon making inquiries at the American Con- 
sulate as to the Customs regulations, he was 
informed that it would be impossible for him to 
undertake the commission, as the Customs 
officers at San Francisco, besides imposing 
a heavy duty on the dog, would keep the ship 
in quarantine because the dog was on board. 

[88] 



FREEDOM AND EQUALITY 



I could scarcely believe this, but inquiries 
confirmed the truth of my friend's statement. 
Customs and immigration laws and sanitary 
regulations must, of course, be observed, but 
they should be enforced in such a way as not 
to work hardship on the people. Officers en- 
trusted with the performance of such duties, 
while faithfully and conscientiously perform- 
ing their work, should yet exercise their power 
with discretion and tact. They are the serv- 
ants of the people, and ought to look after 
their interests and convenience as well as after 
the interests of the State. I would be the last 
one to encourage smuggling, but would the 
national interests really suffer if the Custom 
House officers were to be a little more ready to 
accept a traveller's word, and if they were less 
ready to suspect everyone of making false dec- 
larations when entering the country? Smug- 
gling must be repressed, but at the same time 
is it not true that the more imports enter the 
country the better it is for the State and for 
the people? 

There are no peers in the United States, as 
the Government has no power to create them; 
and although America is nominally a free 
country, yet if a foreign government should 
confer a decoration on an American citizen 
for services rendered, he cannot accept it 

[89] 



AMERICA 



without the consent of Congress, just as under 
a monarchy a subject must obtain his sover- 
eign's permission to wear a foreign decoration. 
It is true that there are some such titled 
persons in America, but they are not treated 
with any greater respect or distinction than 
other citizens ; yet you frequently find people 
in America who not only would not disdain, 
but are actually anxious, to receive decora- 
tions from foreign governments. Once, at 
least, an American high official, just before 
leaving the country to which he had been 
accredited, accepted, without permission, a 
decoration, knowing, that if he had asked for 
the consent of Congress, he would not have 
been allowed to receive it. 

It is human nature to love change and vari- 
ety, and for every person to be designated 
"Mister" is too tame and flat for the go-ahead 
Americans. Hence many of the people whom 
you meet daily have some prefix to their 
names, such as General, Colonel, Major, Presi- 
dent, Judge, etc. You will not be far wrong 
to call a man "Judge" when he is a lawyer; or 
"General" or "Colonel" if he has served in 
the army; or "Admiral" or "Captain" if 
he has been in the navy. Though neither 
the Federal nor the State Government has 
power to confer titles, the magnates do so. 

[90] 



FREEDOM AND EQUALITY 



They see that dukes and other peers are cre- 
ated in Europe, and that the partners in the 
big, wealthy firms over there, are called 
"merchant princes," and so to outdo them, 
they arrogate to themselves a still higher title. 
Hence there are railroad kings, copper kings, 
tobacco kings, etc. It is, however, manifestly 
improper and incongruous that the people 
should possess a higher title than their Pres- 
ident, who is the head of the nation. To make 
it even, I would suggest that the title "Pres- 
ident" be changed to "Emperor," for the 
following reasons: First, it would not only 
do away with the impropriety of the chief 
magistrate of the nation assuming a name 
below that of some of his people, but it would 
place him on a level with the highest ruler of 
any nation on the face of the earth. I have 
often heard the remark that the President of 
the United States is no more than a common 
citizen, elected for four years, and that on the 
expiration of his term he reverts to his former 
humble status of a private citizen; that he has 
nothing in common with the dignified majesty 
of an Emperor; but were the highest official of 
the United States to be in future officially 
known as Emperor, all these depreciatory re- 
marks would fall to the ground. There is no 
reason whatever why he should not be so 

[91] 



AMERICA 



styled, as, by virtue of his high office, he pos- 
sesses almost as much power as the most 
aristocratic ruler of any nation. Secondly, 
it would clearly demonstrate the sovereign 
power of the people; a people who could make 
and unmake an Emperor, would certainly be 
highly respected. Thirdly, the United States 
sends ambassadors to Germany, Austria, 
Russia, etc. According to international law, 
ambassadors have what is called the repre- 
sentative character, that is, they represent 
their sovereign by whom they are delegated, 
and are entitled to the same honors to which 
their constituent would be entitled were he 
personally present. In a Republic where the 
head of the State is only a citizen and the sover- 
eign is the people, it is only by a stretch of 
imagination that its ambassador can be said 
to represent the person of his sovereign. 
Now it would be much more in consonance 
with the dignified character of an American 
ambassador to be the representative of an 
Emperor than of a simple President. The 
name of Emperor may be distasteful to some, 
but may not a new meaning be given to it? 
A word usually has several definitions. Now, 
if Congress were to pass a law authorizing 
the chief magistrate of the United States of 
America to be styled Emperor, such designa- 
te 



FREEDOM AND EQUALITY 



tion to mean nothing more than the word 
"President," the title would soon be under- 
stood in that sense. There is no reason in 
history or philology why the word "Emperor" 
should never mean anything other than a 
hereditary ruler. I make this suggestion 
seriously, and hope it will be adopted. 

Marriage laws in the United States, as I 
understand them, are more elastic than those 
in Europe. In England, until a few years ago, 
a man could not contract a legal marriage with 
his deceased wife's sister, although he could 
marry the betrothed wife of his deceased 
brother. It is curious to compare the Chinese 
view of these two cases. Marriage with a 
deceased wife's sister is, in China, not only 
lawful, but quite common, while to marry a 
dead brother's betrothed is strictly prohibited. 
Doubtless in the United States both are recog- 
nized as legal. I was not, however, prepared 
to hear, and when I did hear it, I could not at 
first believe that a man is permitted to marry 
his deceased son's wife. Let me quote from 
the "China Press" which has special facilities 
for obtaining news from America. "Boston, 
March 24. The engagement of Mrs. Kath- 
erine M. B., widow of Charles A. B., and 
daughter of George C. F., chairman of the 

, Board of , to 

[98] 



AMERICA 



her father-in-law, Frank A. B., of , 

became known to-day. Charles A. B. was 

killed at the Road crossing in 

on March 29, 1910, by a 

locomotive which struck a carriage in which he 
was driving to the First Congregational 
Church, to serve as best man at the wedding 
of Miss H. R. F., another daughter of S. F., 

to L. G. B. of His wife, who 

was in the carriage with him and was to have 
been matron at the wedding, was severely 
injured. Her mother-in-law, Mrs. Frank A. 
B., died some months later." 1 I suppose the 
marriage has since been consummated. If a 
father is permitted to marry his deceased son's 
wife, in fairness a son should be allowed to 
marry his deceased father's wife. I presume 
that there is a law in the United States or in 
some of the states against marriages within 
the prohibited degrees of consanguinity and 
affinity, but I confess that the more I study the 
subject the more I am confused as to what is 
or what is not within the prohibited degrees. 

In China the law on this subject is extremely 
rigid, and consequently its infraction is exceed- 
ingly rare; I have, as a matter of fact, never 
heard of the marriage laws in China being 

1 The names of the parties and places were given in full in the 
"China Press." 

[94] 



FREEDOM AND EQUALITY 



broken. In "Liao Chai," a famous collection 
of Chinese tales, it is recorded that a young 
widow married her son and moved to another 
part of the country, so that their identity 
and relationship should be concealed. They 
seemed to have lived very happily together. 
After many years, when they had had children 
and grandchildren, their true relationship 
was accidentally discovered. A complaint 
was laid before the local authorities. After a 
long deliberation and careful review of the 
case, and to eradicate such "unnatural off- 
spring," as they were termed, it was decided 
that the two offenders, and all their children 
and grandchildren should be burned to death, 
which sentence was duly carried out. I 
doubt if the story is authentic. It was proba- 
bly fabricated by the author that it might 
serve as a warning. The sentence, if true, 
was too severe; the offspring who were inno- 
cent contributories to the crime deserved pity 
rather than punishment; the judgment passed 
on the real offenders was also unduly harsh. 
My object in citing this unsavory tale is to 
show the different views held in regard to 
incestuous marriage in China with its serious 
consequences. 

It is commonly supposed that all men are 
born equal, and that the United States is the 

[95] 



AMERICA 



land of perfect equality. Now let us see if this 
is really so. There are men born into high 
stations of life, or into wealthy families, with 
"silver spoons" in their mouths; while there 
are others ushered into this world by parents 
who are paupers and who cannot support 
them. Then there are people born with wit 
and wisdom, while others are perfect fools. 
Again there are some who are brought to this 
life with strong and healthy constitutions, 
while others are weak and sickly. Thus it is 
plain that men are not born equal, either 
physically, intellectually, or socially. I do 
not know how my American friends account 
for this undoubted fact, but the Chinese 
doctrine of previous lives, of which the 
present are but the continuation, seems to 
afford a satisfactory explanation. 

However, this doctrine of equality and 
independence has done immense good. It 
has, as a rule, caused men to think independ- 
ently, and not to servilely follow the thoughts 
and ideas of others, who may be quite wrong. 
It has encouraged invention, and new dis- 
coveries in science and art. It has enabled 
men to develop industries and to expand 
trade. New York and Chicago, for example, 
could not have become such huge and pros- 
perous cities within comparatively short peri- 

[96] 



FREEDOM AND EQUALITY 



ods, but for their free and wise institutions. 
In countries where personal liberty is unknown, 
and the rights of person and property are 
curtailed, people do not exert themselves to 
improve their environments, but are content 
to remain quiet and inactive. 

By the constitution of the State of Cali- 
fornia it is declared that "all men are free 
and independent." It must be conceded 
that the American people enjoy a greater 
amount of freedom and independence than 
other people. But are they perfectly free, 
and are they really independent? Are they 
not swayed in politics by their "bosses," 
and do not many of them act and vote as 
their bosses dictate? In society are they not 
bound by conventionalities and, dare they 
infringe the strict rules laid down by the 
society leaders? In the matter of dress also 
are they not slaves, abjectly following new- 
fangled fashions imported from Paris? In 
domestic circles are not many husbands hen- 
pecked by their wives, because they, and not 
the men, rule the roost? Are not many 
women practically governed by their husbands, 
whose word is their law? The eager hunger 
for "the almighty dollar" leads most Ameri- 
cans to sacrifice their time, health, and 
liberty in the acquisition of wealth, and, alas, 

[97] 



AMERICA 



when they have acquired it, they find that 
their health is broken, and that they them- 
selves are almost ready for the grave. Ought 
a free and independent people to live after 
this fashion? 

In every well organized community it is 
essential that people should obey all laws 
and regulations which are enacted for the 
greatest good of the greatest number. In 
domestic circles they should willingly sub- 
ordinate their own wishes to the wishes of 
others, for the sake of peace, concord and 
happiness. Happy that people whose laws 
and conditions are such that they can enjoy 
the greatest amount of freedom in regard to 
person and property, compatible with the 
general peace and good order of the com- 
munity, and if I should be asked my opinion, 
notwithstanding all that I have above said 
concerning the United States, I should have 
to acknowledge that I believe that America 
is one of the few nations which have fairly 
well approximated the high ideal of a well- 
governed country. 



[981 



CHAPTER VIII 



AMERICAN MANNERS 

MUCH has been written and more said 
about American manners, or rather the 
American lack of manners. Americans have 
frequently been criticized for their bad breed- 
ing, and many sarcastic references to American 
deportment have been made in my presence. 
I have even been told, I do not know how true 
it is, that European diplomats dislike being 
stationed in America, because of their aversion 
to the American way of doing things. 

Much too has been written and said about 
Chinese manners, not only by foreigners but 
also by Chinese. One of the classics, which 
our youth have to know by heart, is practi- 
cally devoted entirely to manners. There 
has also been much adverse criticism of our 
manners or our excess of manners, though I 
have never heard that any diplomats have, 
on this account, objected to being sent to 
China. We Chinese are therefore in the same 
boat as the Americans. In regard to manners 
neither of us find much favor with foreigners, 
though for diametrically opposite reasons: 

[99] 



AMERICA 



the Americans are accused of observing too 
few formalities, and we of being too formal. 

The Americans are direct and straight- 
forward. They will tell you to your face 
that they like you, and occasionally they also 
have very little hesitation in telling you that 
they do not like you. They say frankly just 
what they think. It is immaterial to them 
that their remarks are personal, compli- 
mentary or otherwise. I have had members 
of my own family complimented on their 
good looks as if they were children. In this 
respect Americans differ greatly from the 
English. The English adhere with meticu- 
lous care to the rule of avoiding everything 
personal. They are very much afraid of 
rudeness on the one hand, and of insincerity 
or flattery on the other. Even in the matter 
of such a harmless affair as a compliment to 
a foreigner on his knowledge of English, they 
will precede it with a request for pardon, 
and speak in a half-apologetic manner, as if 
complimenting were something personal. The 
English and the Americans are closely related, 
they have much in common, but they also 
differ widely, and in nothing is the difference 
more conspicuous than in their conduct. I 
have noticed curiously enough that English 
Colonials, especially in such particulars as 

[100] 



MANNERS 



speech and manners, follow their quondam 
sister colony, rather than the mother country. 
And this, not only in Canada, where the 
phenomenon might be explained by climatic, 
geographic, and historic reasons, but also in 
such antipodean places as Australia and 
South Africa, which are so far away as to 
apparently have very little in common either 
with America or with each other. Never- 
theless, whatever the reason, the transplanted 
Englishman, whether in the arctics or the 
tropics, whether in the Northern or the 
Southern Hemisphere, seems to develop a 
type quite different from the original stock, 
yet always resembling his fellow emigrants. 

The directness of Americans is seen not only 
in what they say but in the way they say it. 
They come directly to the point, without 
much preface or introduction, much less is 
there any circumlocution or "beating about 
the bush." When they come to see you 
they say their say and then take their depar- 
ture, moreover they say it in the most terse, 
concise and unambiguous manner. In this 
respect what a contrast they are to us! We 
always approach each other with preliminary 
greetings. Then we talk of the weather, 
of politics or friends, of anything, in fact, which 
is as far as possible from the object of the 
[101] 



AMERICA 



visit. Only after this introduction do we 
broach the subject uppermost in our minds, 
and throughout the conversation polite courte- 
sies are exchanged whenever the opportunity 
arises. These elaborate preludes and inter- 
ludes may, to the strenuous ever-in-a-hurry 
American, seem useless and superfluous, but 
they serve a good purpose. Like the common 
courtesies and civilities of life they pave the 
way for the speakers, especially if they are 
strangers; they improve their tempers, and 
place them generally on terms of mutual 
understanding. It is said that some years 
ago a Foreign Consul in China, having a 
serious complaint to make on behalf of his 
national, called on the Taotai, the highest 
local authority in the port. He found the 
Chinese official so genial and polite that after 
half an hour's conversation, he advised the 
complainant to settle the matter amicably 
without troubling the Chinese officials about 
the matter. A good deal may be said in 
behalf of both systems. The American prac- 
tice has at least the merit of saving time, an 
all important object with the American people. 
When we recall that this remarkable nation 
will spend millions of dollars to build a tunnel 
under a river, or to shorten a curve in a rail- 
road, merely that they may save two or three 

[102] * 



MANNERS 



minutes, we are not surprised at the abrupt- 
ness of their speech. I, as a matter of fact, 
when thinking of their time-saving and abrupt 
manner of address, have been somewhat 
puzzled to account for that peculiar drawl of 
theirs. Very slowly and deliberately they 
enunciate each word and syllable with long- 
drawn emphasis, punctuating their sentences 
with pauses, some short and some long. It 
is almost an effort to follow a story of any 
length — the beginning often becomes cold 
before the end is reached. It seems to me 
that if Americans would speed up their speech 
after the fashion of their English cousins, 
who speak two or three times as quickly, 
they would save many minutes every day, and 
would find the habit not only more efficacious, 
but much more economical than many of 
their time-saving machines and tunnels. I 
offer this suggestion to the great American 
nation for what it is worth, and I know they 
will receive it in the spirit in which it is made, 
for they have the saving sense of humor. 

Some people are ridiculously sensitive. 
Some years ago, at a certain place, a big 
dinner was given in honor of a notable who 
was passing through the district. A Chinese, 
prominent in local affairs, who had received 
an invitation, discovered that though he 

[103] 



AMERICA 



would sit among the honored guests he would 
be placed below one or two whom he thought 
he ought to be above, and who, he therefore 
considered, would be usurping his rightful 
position. In disgust he refused to attend the 
dinner, which, excepting for what he imagined 
was a breach of manners, he would have been 
very pleased to have attended. Americans 
are much more sensible. They are not a bit 
sensitive, especially in small matters. Either 
they are broad-minded enough to rise above 
unworthy trifles, or else their good American- 
ism prevents their squabbling over questions 
of precedence, at the dinner table or else- 
where. 

Americans act up to their Declaration of 
Independence, especially the principle it enun- 
ciates concerning the equality of man. They 
lay so much importance on this that they do 
not confine its application to legal rights, 
but extend it even to social intercourse. In 
fact, I think this doctrine is the basis of the 
so-called American manners. All men are 
deemed socially equal, whether as friend and 
friend, as President and citizen, as employer 
and employee, as master and servant, or as 
parent and child. Their relationship may 
be such that one is entitled to demand, and 
the other to render, certain acts of obedience, 

[104] 



MANNERS 



and a certain amount of respect, but outside 
that they are on the same level. This is 
doubtless a rebellion against all the social 
ideas and prejudices of the old world, but it 
is perhaps only what might be looked for in 
a new country, full of robust and ambitious 
manhood, disdainful of all traditions which 
in the least savor of monarchy or hierarchy, 
and eager to blaze as new a path for itself in 
the social as it has succeeded in accomplishing 
in the political world. Combined with this 
is the American characteristic of saving time. 
Time is precious to all of us, but to Americans 
it is particularly so. We all wish to save 
time, but the Americans care much more 
about it than the rest of us. Then there are 
different notions about this question of saving 
time, different notions of what wastes time 
and what does not, and much which the old 
world regards as politeness and good manners 
Americans consider as sheer waste of time. 
Time is, they think, far too precious to be 
occupied with ceremonies which appear empty 
and meaningless. It can, they say, be much 
more profitably filled with other and more 
useful occupations. In any discussion of 
American manners it would be unfair to leave 
out of consideration their indifference to 
ceremony and their highly developed sense 

[105] 



AMERICA 



of the value of time, but in saying this I do 
not forget that many Americans are devout 
ritualists, and that these find both comfort 
and pleasure in ceremony, which suggests 
that after all there is something to be said for 
the Chinese who have raised correct deport- 
ment almost to the rank of a religion. 

The youth of America have not unnaturally 
caught the spirit of their elders, so that even 
children consider themselves as almost on a 
par with their parents, as almost on the same 
plane of equality; but the parents, on the 
other hand, also treat them as if they were 
equals, and allow them the utmost freedom. 
While a Chinese child renders unquestioning 
obedience to his parents' orders, such obedience 
as a soldier yields to his superior officer, the 
American child must have the whys and the 
wherefores duly explained to him, and the 
reason for his obedience made clear. It is 
not his parent that he obeys, but expediency 
and the dictates of reason. Here we see the 
clear-headed, sound, common -sense business 
man in the making. The early training of 
the boy has laid the foundation for the future 
man. The child too has no compunction 
in correcting a parent even before strangers, 
and what is stranger still the parent accepts 
the correction in good part, and sometimes 

[106] 



MANNERS 



even with thanks. A parent is often inter- 
rupted in the course of a narrative, or discus- 
sion, by a small piping voice, setting right, 
or what it believes to be right, some date, 
place, or fact, and the parent, after a word of 
encouragement or thanks, proceeds. How 
different is our rule that a child is not to 
speak until spoken to! In Chinese official 
life under the old regime it was not etiquette 
for one official to contradict another, especially 
when they were unequal in rank. When a 
high official expressed views which his sub- 
ordinates did not endorse, they could not 
candidly give their opinion, but had to remain 
silent. I remember that some years ago some 
of my colleagues and I had an audience with 
a very high official, and when I expressed my 
dissent from some of the views of that high 
functionary, he rebuked me severely. After- 
ward he called me to him privately, and 
spoke to me somewhat as follows: "What 
you said just now was quite correct. I was 
wrong, and I will adopt your views, but you 
must not contradict me in the presence of 
other people. Do not do it again." There 
is of course much to be said for and against 
each system, and perhaps a blend of the two 
would give good results. Anyhow, we can 
trace in American customs that spirit of equal- 

[107] 



AMERICA 



ity which pervades the whole of American 
society, and observe the germs of self-reliance 
and independence so characteristic of Ameri- 
cans, whether men, women, or children. 

Even the domestic servant does not lose 
this precious American heritage of equality. 
I have nothing to say against that worthy 
individual, the American servant (if one can 
be found); on the contrary, none is more 
faithful or more efficient. But in some respects 
he is unique among the servants of the world. 
He does not see that there is any inequality 
between him and his master. His master, 
or should I say, his employer, pays him 
certain wages to do certain work, and he does 
it, but outside the bounds of this contract, 
they are still man and man, citizen and 
citizen. It is all beautifully, delightfully 
legal. The washerwoman is the "wash-lady," 
and is just as much a lady as her mistress. 
The word "servant" is not applied to domes- 
tics, "help" is used instead, very much in 
the same way that Canada and Australia 
are no longer English "colonies," but "self- 
governing dominions." 

We of the old world are accustomed to 
regard domestic service as a profession in 
which the members work for advancement, 
without much thought of ever changing their 

[108] 



MANNERS 



position. A few clever persons may ulti- 
mately adopt another profession, and, accord- 
ing to our antiquated conservative ways of 
thinking, rise higher in the social scale, but, 
for the large majority, the dignity of a butler, 
or a housekeeper is the height of ambition, 
the crowning point in their career. Not 
so the American servant. Strictly speaking 
there are no servants in America. The man, 
or the woman as the case may be, who happens 
for the moment to be your servant, is only 
servant for the time being. He has no 
intention of making domestic service his 
profession, of being a servant for the whole of 
his life. To have to be subject to the will 
of others, even to the small extent to which 
American servants are subordinate, is offen- 
sive to an American's pride of citizenship, it 
is contrary to his conception of American 
equality. He is a servant only for the time, 
and until he finds something better to do. 
He accepts a menial position only as a stepping 
stone to some more independent employment. 
Is it to be wondered at that American servants 
have different manners from their brethren 
in other countries? When foreigners find 
that American servants are not like servants 
in their own country, they should not resent 
their behavior: it does not denote disrespect, 

[109] 



AMERICA 



it is only the outcrop of their natural inde- 
pendence and aspirations. 

All titles of nobility are by the Constitution 
expressly forbidden. Even titles of honor 
or courtesy are but rarely used. "Honor- 
able" is used to designate members of Con- 
gress; and for a few Americans, such as the 
President and the Ambassadors, the title 
"Excellency" is permitted. Yet, whether 
it is because the persons entitled to be so 
addressed do not think that even these mild 
titles are consistent with American democracy, 
or because the American public feels awkward 
in employing such stilted terms of address, they 
are not often used. I remember that on one 
occasion a much respected Chief Executive, 
on my proposing, in accordance with diplo- 
matic usage and precedent, to address him as 
"Your Excellency," begged me to substitute 
instead "Mr. President." The plain demo- 
cratic "Mr." suits the democratic American 
taste much better than any other title, and 
is applied equally to the President of the 
Republic and to his coachman. Indeed the 
plain name John Smith, without even "Mr.," 
not only gives no offense, where some higher 
title might be employed, but fits just as well, 
and is in fact often used. Even prominent 
and distinguished men do not resent nicknames ; 

[no] 



MANNERS 



for example, the celebrated person whose name 
is so intimately connected with that delight 
of American children and grown-ups — the 
"Teddy Bear." This characteristic, like so 
many other American characteristics, is due 
not only to the love of equality and independ- 
ence, but also to the dislike of any waste of 
time. 

In countries where there are elaborate rule 
of etiquette concerning titles and forms of 
address, none but a Master of Ceremonies 
can hope to be thoroughly familiar with them, 
or to be able to address the distinguished 
people without withholding from them their 
due share of high-sounding titles and epithets; 
and, be it whispered, these same distinguished 
people, however broad-minded and magnani- 
mous they may be in other respects, are 
sometimes extremely sensitive in this respect. 
And even after one has mastered all the rules 
and forms, and can appreciate and distinguish 
the various nice shades which exist between 
"His Serene Highness," "His Highness," 
"His Royal Highness," and "His Imperial 
Highness," or between "Rt. Rev." and "Most 
Rev.," one has yet to learn what titles a 
particular person has, and with what particu- 
lar form of address he should be approached, 
an impossible task even for a Master of 

[mi 



AMERICA 



Ceremonies, unless he always has in his 
pocket a Burke's Peerage to tell him who's 
who. What a waste of time, what an incon- 
venience, and what an unnecessary amount 
of irritation and annoyance all this causes. 
How much better to be able to address any 
person you meet simply as Mr. So-and-So, 
without unwittingly treading on somebody's 
sensitive corns! Americans have shown their 
common sense in doing away with titles 
altogether, an example which the sister Re- 
public of China is following. An illustrious 
name loses nothing for having to stand by 
itself without prefixes and suffixes, handles 
and tails. Mr. Gladstone was no less him- 
self for not prefixing his name with Earl, 
and the other titles to which it would have 
entitled him, as he could have done had he 
not declined the so-called honor. Indeed, 
like the "Great Commoner," he, if that were 
possible, endeared himself the more to his 
countrymen because of his refusal. A name, 
which is great without resorting to the bor- 
rowed light of titles and honors, is greater 
than any possible suffix or affix which could 
be appended to it. 

In conclusion, American manners are but 
an instance or result of the two predominant 
American characteristics to which I have 

[112] 



MANNERS 



already referred, and which reappear in so 
many other things American. A love of 
independence and of equality, early incul- 
cated, and a keen abhorrence of waste of time, 
engendered by the conditions and circum- 
stances of a new country, serve to explain 
practically all the manners and mannerisms 
of Americans. Even the familiar spectacle 
of men walking with their hands deep in 
their trousers' pockets, or sitting with their 
legs crossed needs no other explanation, and 
to suggest that, because Americans have 
some habits which are peculiarly their own, 
they are either inferior or unmanly, would be 
to do them a grave injustice. 

Few people are more warm-hearted, genial, 
and sociable than the Americans. I do not 
dwell on this, because it is quite unnecessary. 
The fact is perfectly familiar to all who have 
the slightest knowledge of them. Their kind- 
ness and warmth to strangers are particularly 
pleasant, and are much appreciated by their 
visitors. In some other countries, the people, 
though not unsociable, surround themselves 
with so much reserve that strangers are at 
first chilled and repulsed, although there are 
no pleasanter or more hospitable persons 
anywhere to be found when once you have 
broken the ice, and learned to know them; 

[113] 



AMERICA 



but it is the stranger who must make the 
first advances, for they themselves will make 
no effort to become acquainted, and their 
manner is such as to discourage any efforts 
on the part of the visitor. You may travel 
with them for hours in the same car, sit 
opposite to them, and all the while they will 
shelter themselves behind a newspaper, the 
broad sheets of which effectively prohibit 
any attempts at closer acquaintance. The 
following instance, culled from a personal 
experience, is an illustration. I was a law 
student at Lincoln's Inn, London, where 
there is a splendid law library for the use of 
the students and members of the Inn. I used 
to go there almost every day to pursue my 
legal studies, and generally sat in the same 
quiet corner. The seat on the opposite side 
of the table was usually occupied by another 
law student. For months we sat opposite 
each other without exchanging a word. I 
thought I was too formal and reserved, so I 
endeavored to improve matters by occasion- 
ally looking up at him as if about to address 
him, but every time I did so he looked down 
as though he did not wish to see me. Finally 
I gave up the attempt. This is the general 
habit with English gentlemen. They will not 
speak to a stranger without a proper intro- 

[114] 



MANNERS 



duction; but in the case I have mentioned 
surely the rule would have been more honored 
by a breach than by the observance. Seeing 
that we were fellow students, it might have 
been presumed that we were gentlemen and 
on an equal footing. How different are the 
manners of the American! You can hardly 
take a walk, or go for any distance in a train, 
without being addressed by a stranger, and 
not infrequently making a friend. In some 
countries the fact that you are a foreigner 
only thickens the ice, in America it thaws it. 
This delightful trait in the American character 
is also traceable to the same cause as that 
which has helped us to explain the other 
peculiarities which have been mentioned. 
To good Americans, not only are the citizens 
of America born equal, but the citizens of the 
world are also born equal. 



[115] 



CHAPTER IX 



AMERICAN WOMEN 

IT is rather bold on my part to take up this 
subject. It is a path where " fools rush 
in where angels fear to tread." No matter 
what I may say it is sure to provoke criticism, 
but having frequently been asked by my 
lady friends to give my opinion of American 
women, and having given my solemn promise 
that if I ever should write my impressions of 
America I would do so, it would be a serious 
"breach of promise" if I should now break 
my word. 

In general there are three classes of women : 
first, those who wish to be praised; secondly, 
those who wish to be adversely criticized and 
condemned; and thirdly, those who are simply 
curious to hear what others think of them. 
American women do not as a rule belong to 
either the first or the second class, but a large 
majority of them may be ranged under class 
three. They wish to know what other people 
honestly think of them and to hear their 
candid views. They are progressive people 
who desire to improve their defects whenever 
they are pointed out to them. That being 

[116] 



WOMEN 



the case I must not swerve from my duty of 
sitting in a high court of justice to pass 
judgment on them. 

To begin with, the American women are 
in some respects dissimilar to the women of 
other nations. I find them sprightly, talka- 
tive and well informed. They can converse 
on any subject with ease and resource, show- 
ing that they have a good all-round education. 
Often have I derived considerable information 
from them. The persistence with which they 
stick to their opinions is remarkable. Once, 
when I had a lady visitor at my Legation in 
Washington, after several matters had been 
discussed we commenced talking about wom- 
en's rights. I was in favor of giving women 
more rights than they are enjoying, but on 
some points I did not go so far as my lady 
friend; after arguing with me for several 
hours, she, seeing that I did not coincide with 
all her views, threatened that she would not 
leave my house until I had fully digested 
all her points, and had become converted 
to her views. 

I have observed that many American 
women marry foreigners, but that an Ameri- 
can rarely has a foreign wife. It may be said 
that foreigners marry American girls for their 
money, while American women marry dis- 

[117] 



AMERICA 



tinguished foreigners for their titles. This 
may have been true in some cases, but other 
causes than such sordid motives must be looked 
for. It is the attractiveness and the beauty 
of the American girls which enable them to 
capture so many foreign husbands. Their 
pleasant manners and winsome nature pre- 
dispose a person in their favor, and with 
their well-grounded education and ready fund 
of knowledge, they easily win any gentleman 
with marital propensities. Had I been single 
when I first visited America I too might have 
been a victim — no wonder then that American 
men prefer American wives. Once I was an 
involuntary match-maker. Some years ago, 
during my first mission in Washington, I was 
invited to attend the wedding of the daughter 
of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. 
When I entered the breakfast room, I saw the 
bridesmaids and a number of young men. 
Going up to one of the bridesmaids whom I 
had previously met, and who was the daughter 
of a Senator, I asked her when it would be her 
turn to become a bride. She modestly said 
that she did not know, as she had not yet had 
an offer. Turning to the group of young men 
who were in the room, I jocularly remarked to 
one of them, "This is a beautiful lady, would 
you not like to marry her?" He replied, "I 

[118] 



WOMEN 



shall be most delighted to." Then I said to 
the young lady, "Will you accept his offer?" 
She seemed slightly embarrassed and said some- 
thing to the effect that as she did not know the 
gentleman she could not give a definite answer. 
After a few days I met the young lady at an 
"At Home" party when she scolded me for 
being so blunt with her before the young men. 
I told her I was actuated by the best of motives, 
and a few months later I received an invitation 
from the young lady's parents inviting me to 
be present at their daughter's marriage. I 
thought I would go and find out whether the 
bridegroom was the young man whom I had 
introduced to the young lady, and as soon as I 
entered the house, the mother of the bride, to 
my agreeable surprise, informed me that it was 
I who had first brought the young couple 
together, and both the bride and bridegroom 
heartily thanked me for my good offices. 

One very conspicuous feature in the char- 
acter of American women is their self-control 
and independence. As soon as a girl grows up 
she is allowed to do what she pleases, without 
the control of her parents. It is a common 
occurrence to see a young lady travelling alone 
without either a companion or a chaperon. 
Travelling on one occasion from San Fran- 
cisco to Washington I met a young lady on 
[119] 



AMERICA 



the train who was still in her teens. She told 
me that she was going to New York to em- 
bark on a steamer for Germany, with the in- 
tention of entering a German college. She 
was undertaking this long journey alone. 
Such an incident would be impossible in China; 
even in England, or indeed in any European 
country, I hardly believe that a respectable 
young girl would be allowed to take such a 
journey without some trusty friend to look 
after her. But in America this is a common 
occurrence, and it is a credit to the administra- 
tion, and speaks volumes for the good govern- 
ment of the country, that for sensible wide- 
awake American girls such undertakings are 
perfectly safe. 

This notion of independence and freedom 
has modified the relation of children to their 
parents. Instead of children being required 
to show respect and filial obedience, the obli- 
gation of mutual love and esteem is cultivated. 
Parents would not think of ordering a girl or 
a boy to do anything, however reasonable; 
in all matters they treat them as their equals 
and friends; nor would a girl submit to an 
arbitrary order from her mother, for she does 
not regard her as a superior, but as her friend 
and companion. I find it is a common prac- 
tice among American girls to engage themselves 

[no] 



WOMEN 



in marriage without consulting their parents. 
Once I had a serious talk on this subject with a 
young couple who were betrothed. I asked 
them if they had the consent of their parents. 
They both answered emphatically that it was 
not necessary, and that it was their business 
and not their parents'. I told them that al- 
though it was their business, they might have 
shown some respect to their parents by con- 
sulting them before committing themselves 
to this important transaction. They an- 
swered that they did not agree with me, and 
as it concerned their own happiness alone, they 
had a perfect right to decide the matter for 
themselves. This shows the extreme limit to 
which the Americans carry their theory of inde- 
pendence. Unless I am greatly mistaken, I 
fear this is a typical and not an isolated case. 
I believe that in many cases, after they had 
made up their minds to marry, the young 
people would inform their respective parents 
of their engagement, but I question if they 
would subordinate their own wishes to the will 
of their parents, or ask their consent to their 
engagement. 

Now let us see how all this is managed in 
China. Here the parties most interested have 
no voice in the matter. The parents, through 
their friends, or sometimes through the pro- 

[121] 



AMERICA 



fessional match-makers, arrange the marriage, 
but only after the most strict and diligent in- 
quiries as to the character, position, and suit- 
ability of temper and disposition of the per- 
sons for whom the marriage contract is being 
prepared. This is sometimes done with the 
knowledge of the interested parties, but very 
often they are not consulted. After an en- 
gagement is thus made it cannot be broken off, 
not even by the young people themselves, even 
though he or she may plead that the arrange- 
ment was made without his or her knowledge 
or consent. The engagement is considered by 
all parties as a solemn compact. On the wed- 
ding day, in nine cases out of ten, the bride 
and bridegroom meet each other for the first 
time, and yet they live contentedly, and quite 
often even happily together. Divorces in 
China are exceedingly rare. This is accounted 
for by the fact that through the wise control of 
their parents the children are properly mated. 
In saying this I do not wish to be supposed to 
be advocating the introduction of the Chinese 
system into America. I would, however, 
point out that the independent and thought- 
less way in which the American young people 
take on themselves the marriage vow does not 
as a rule result in suitable companionships. 
When a girl falls in love with a young man she 



WOMEN 



is unable to perceive his shortcomings and 
vices, and when, after living together for a few 
months, she begins to find them out, it is alas 
too late. If, previous to her engagement, she 
had taken her mother into her confidence, and 
asked her to use her good offices to find out the 
character of the young man whom she favored, 
a fatal and unhappy mistake might have been 
avoided. Without interfering, in the least, 
with the liberty or free choice, I should think 
it would be a good policy if all young Amer- 
icans, before definitely committing themselves 
to a promise of marriage, would at least con- 
sult their mothers, and ask them to make pri- 
vate and confidential inquiries as to the dis- 
position, as well as to the moral and physical 
fitness of the young man or lady whom they 
contemplate marrying. Mothers are natu- 
rally concerned about the welfare and happi- 
ness of their offspring, and could be trusted in 
most cases to make careful, impartial and con- 
scientious inquiries as to whether the girl or 
man was really a worthy and suitable life part- 
ner for their children. If this step were 
generally taken many an unfortunate union 
would be avoided. It was after this fashion 
that I reasoned with the young people men- 
tioned above, but they did not agree with me, 
and I had to conclude that love is blind. 
[123] 



AMERICA 



Before leaving this subject I would add that 
the system of marriage which has been in 
vogue in China for so many centuries has been 
somewhat changed within the last few years. 
This is due to the new spirit which has been 
gradually growing. Young people begin to 
exert their rights, and will not allow parents 
to choose their life partners without their 
consent. * Instances of girls choosing their 
own husbands have come to my knowledge, 
and they did not occur during leap-year. But 
I sincerely hope that our Chinese youth will 
not go to the same lengths as the young people 
of America. 

The manner in which a son treats his parents 
in the United States is diametrically opposed 
to our Chinese doctrine, handed down to us 
from time immemorial. "Honor thy father 
and thy mother" is an injunction of Moses 
which all Christians profess to observe, but 
which, or so it appears to a Confucianist, all 
equally forget. The Confucian creed lays it 
down as the essential duty of children that 
they shall not only honor and obey their 
fathers and their mothers, but that they are in 
duty bound to support them. The reason is 
that as their parents brought them into the 
world, reared and educated them, the children 
should make them some return for their 

[124] 



WOMEN 



trouble and care. The view of this question 
which is taken in America seems to be very- 
strange to me. Once I heard a young Amer- 
ican argue in this way. He said, gravely and 
seriously, that as he was brought into this 
world by his parents without his consent, it 
was their duty to rear him in a proper way, but 
that it was no part of his duty to support them. 
I was very much astounded at this statement. 
In China such a son would be despised, and if 
he neglected to maintain his parents he would 
be punished. I do not believe that the ex- 
treme views of this young man are universally 
accepted in America, but I am inclined to 
think that the duties of children toward their 
parents are somewhat ill-defined. American 
parents do not apparently expect their children 
to support them, because, as a rule they are, if 
not rich, at least in comfortable circumstances ; 
and even if they are not, they would rather 
work for their livelihood than burden their 
children and hinder their success by relying 
on them for pecuniary aid. It may have 
escaped my observation, but, so far as I know, 
it is not the custom for young people to provide 
for their parents. There was, however, one 
exceptional case which came to my knowledge. 
Some years ago a young Senator in Washing- 
ton, who was famous for his eloquence, had his 

[125] 



AMERICA 



father living with him. His father was eighty- 
years of age, and though in robust health was a 
cripple, and so had to depend on him for sup- 
port. I was informed that he and his wife 
were very kind to him. Many young men 
treat their parents kindly and affectionately, 
but they do it more as a favor than as a duty; 
in fact, as between equals. 

In connection with this subject I may men- 
tion that as soon as a son marries, however 
young and inexperienced he may be, he leaves 
his parents' roof. He and his bride will set up 
a separate establishment so that they can do as 
they please without the supervision of their 
parents. The latter do not object, as it gives 
the young folk an opportunity to gain experi- 
ence in keeping house. Young wives have a 
horror of having their mothers-in-law reside 
with them; if it be necessary to have an elderly 
lady as a companion they always endeavor to 
get their own mothers. 

American women are ambitious and versa- 
tile, and can readily apply themselves to any 
task with ease. They are not only employed 
in stores and mercantile houses but are en- 
gaged in different professions. There is 
scarcely any store in America where there are 
not some women employed as typists, clerks, or 
accountants. I am told that they are more 

[126] 



WOMEN 



steady than men. Even in the learned pro- 
fessions they successfully compete with the 
men. Some years ago the Attorney-General- 
ship of one of the states became vacant. Two 
candidates appeared; one was a gentleman 
and the other a young lady lawyer. They 
both sought election; the gentleman secured a 
small majority, but in the end the lady lawyer 
conquered, for she soon became the wife of the 
Attorney-General, her former opponent dur- 
ing the election campaign, and after her 
marriage she practically carried on the work of 
her husband. Some years later her husband 
retired from practice in order to farm, and she 
continued to carry on the law practice. Does 
not this indicate that the intellect of the 
American woman is equal, if not superior, to 
that of the men? American women are good 
conversationalists, and many of them are 
eloquent and endowed with "the gift of the 
gab." One of the cleverest and wittiest 
speeches I have ever heard was from a woman 
who spoke at a public meeting on a public 
question. They are also good writers. Such 
women as Mrs. Ella Wheeler Wilcox, Mrs. 
Mary N. Foote Henderson, Mrs. Elizabeth 
Towne and many others, are a great credit to 
their sex. The writings of such women show 
their profound insight and wide culture. 
[127] 



AMERICA 



Naturally such women cannot be expected to 
play second fiddle. They exercise great in- 
fluence, and when married "they rule the 
roost." It should be mentioned that their 
husbands submit willingly to their tactful rule, 
and gladly obey their commands without 
feeling that they are servants. I would 
advise any married woman who complains of 
her husband being unruly and unpleasant to 
take a lesson from the ladies of America. They 
are vivacious, bright, loquacious and less re- 
served than European ladies. In social func- 
tions they can be easily recognized. If, how- 
ever, an American lady marries a foreigner and 
lives abroad, she soon loses her national 
characteristics. Once on board a steamer I 
had an American lady as a fellow passenger; 
from her reserved manner I mistook her for 
an English lady, and it was only after some 
days that I discovered she was born in America, 
but that she had been living in England for 
many years with her English husband. 

There is one fault I find with American 
women, if it can be so called, and that is their 
inquisitiveness; I know that this is a common 
fault with all women, but it is most conspicu- 
ous in the Americans. They have the knack 
of finding out things without your being aware 
of it, and if they should want to know your 

[128] 



WOMEN 



history they will learn all about it after a few 
minutes' conversation. They are good de- 
tectives, and I think they should be employed 
in that line more than they are. 

A nation's reputation depends upon the 
general character of its women, for they form 
at least half, if not more, of the population. 
In this respect America stands high, for the 
American woman is lively, open-hearted and 
ingenuous; she is also fearless, independent, 
and is almost without restraint. She is easily 
accessible to high and low, and friendly to all, 
but woe to the man who should misunderstand 
the pure and high character of an American 
girl, and attempt to take liberties with her. 
To a stranger, and especially to an Oriental, 
she is a puzzle. Some years ago I had to dis- 
abuse a false notion of a countryman of mine 
respecting a lady's behavior toward him. 
The keen observer will find that the American 
girl, having been educated in schools and 
colleges with boys, naturally acts more freely 
than her sisters in other countries, where great 
restraint is imposed upon them. Her actions 
may be considered as perilously near to the 
border of masculinity, yet she is as far from 
either coarseness or low thoughts as is the 
North from the South Pole. The Chinese 
lady is as pure as her American sister, but she 

[129] 



AMERICA 



is brought up in a different way; her exclusion 
keeps her indoors, and she has practically no 
opportunity of associating with male friends. 
A bird which has been confined in a cage for a 
long time, will, when the door is opened, fly 
far away and perhaps never return, but if 
it has been tamed and allowed to go in and out 
of its cage as it pleases it will not go far, but 
will always come back in the evening. When 
my countrywomen are allowed more freedom 
they will not abuse it, but it will take some 
little time to educate them up to the American 
standards. 



[130] 



CHAPTER X 



AMERICAN COSTUMES 

FASHION is the work of the devil. When 
he made up his mind to enslave mankind 
he found in fashion his most effective weapon. 
Fashion enthralls man, it deprives him of his 
freedom; it is the most autocratic dictator, its 
mandate being obeyed by all classes, high and 
low, without exception. Every season it 
issues new decrees, and no matter how ludi- 
crous they are, everyone submits forthwith. 
The fashions of this season are changed in the 
next. Look, for example, at women's hats; 
some years ago the "merry widow" which was 
about two or three feet in diameter, was all the 
rage, and the larger it became the more fash- 
ionable it was. Sometimes the wearer could 
hardly go through a doorway. Then came 
the hat crowned with birds' feathers, some 
ladies even placing the complete bird on their 
hats — a most ridiculous exhibition of bad 
taste. The Society for the Prevention of 
Cruelty to Animals should take up the question 
of the destruction of birds for their plumage, 
and agitate until the law makes it illegal to 
[131] 



AMERICA 



wear a bird on a hat. Some may say that if 
people kill animals and birds for food they 
might just as well wear a dead bird on their 
hats, if they wish to be so silly, although the 
large majority of America's population, I am 
sorry to find, sincerely believe meat to be a 
necessary article of diet; yet who will claim 
that a dead bird on a hat is an indispensable 
article of wearing apparel? Why do we dress 
at all ? First, I suppose, for protection against 
cold and heat; secondly, for comfort; thirdly, 
for decency; and, fourthly, for ornament. 
Now does the dress of Americans meet these 
requirements ? 

First, as regards the weather, does woman's 
dress protect her from the cold ? The fact that 
a large number of persons who daily suffer 
from colds arouses the suspicion that their 
dress is at fault. The body is neither equally 
nor evenly covered, the upper portion being as 
a rule nearly bare, or very thinly clad, so that 
the slightest exposure to a draught, or a sudden 
change of temperature, subjects the wearer to 
the unpleasant experience of catching cold, 
unless she is so physically robust and healthy 
that she can resist all the dangers to which her 
clothing, or rather her lack of clothing, sub- 
jects her. Indeed ladies' dress, instead of 
affording protection sometimes endangers 

[132] 



COSTUMES 



their lives. The following extract from the 
"London Times'' — and the facts cannot be 
doubted — is a warning to the fair sex. "The 
strong gale which swept over Bradford resulted 
in an extraordinary accident by which a girl 
lost her life. Mary Bailey, aged 16, the 
daughter of an electrician, who is a pupil at the 
Hanson Secondary School, was in the school 
yard when she was suddenly lifted up into the 
air by a violent gust of wind which got under 
her clothes converting them into a sort of 
parachute. After being carried to a height 
estimated by spectators at 20 feet, she turned 
over in the air and fell to the ground striking 
the concreted floor of the yard with great 
force. She was terribly injured and died half 
an hour later." Had the poor girl been wear- 
ing Chinese clothing this terrible occurrence 
could not have happened; her life would not 
have been sacrificed to fashion. 

As to the second point, comfort, I do not 
believe that the wearer of a fashionable cos- 
tume is either comfortable or contented. I will 
say nothing of the unnecessary garments which 
the average woman affects, but let us see what 
can be said for the tight corset binding the waist. 
So far from being comfortable it must be most 
inconvenient, a sort of perpetual penance and 
it is certainly injurious to the health. I feel 
[133] 



AMERICA 



confident that physicians will support me in my 
belief that the death-rate among American 
women would be less if corset and other tight 
lacing were abolished. I have known of in- 
stances where tight lacing for the ballroom has 
caused the death of enceinte women. 

As to the third object, decency, I am not 
convinced that the American dress fulfils this 
object. When I say American dress, I include 
also the clothing worn by Europeans for both 
are practically the same. It may be a mat- 
ter of education, but from the Oriental point 
of view we would prefer that ladies' dresses 
should be worn more loosely, so that the figure 
should be less prominent. I am aware that 
this is a view which my American friends do 
not share. It is very curious that what is con- 
sidered as indecent in one country is thought 
to be quite proper in another. During the 
hot summers in the Province of Kiangsu 
the working women avoid the inconveniences 
and chills of perspiration by going about their 
work with nothing on the upper part of their 
bodies, except a chest protector to cover the 
breasts; in Western countries women would 
never think of doing this, even during a season 
of extreme heat; yet they do not object, even 
in the depth of winter, to uncovering their 
shoulders as low as possible when attending 

[134] 



PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE SUPERIORITY OF THE DRESS OF CHINESE 
WOMEN TO THAT OF AMERICAN WOMEN 
The Two in Front are Youny Girls 



COSTUMES 



a dinner-party, a ball, or the theater. I re- 
member the case of a Chinese rice-pounder in 
Hongkong who was arrested and taken to the 
Police Court on a charge of indecency. To 
enable him to do his work better he had dis- 
pensed with all his clothing excepting a loin 
cloth ; for this he was sentenced to pay a fine of 
$2, or, in default of payment to be imprisoned 
for a week. The English Magistrate, in im- 
posing the fine, lectured him severely, remark- 
ing that in a civilized community such primi- 
tive manners could not be tolerated, as they 
were both barbarous and indecent. When he 
said this did he think of the way the women 
of his country dress when they go to a ball? 

It must be remembered that modesty is 
wholly a matter of conventionality and cus- 
tom. Competent observers have testified that 
savages who have been accustomed to nudity 
all their lives are covered with shame when 
made to put on clothing for the first time. 
They exhibit as much confusion as a civilized 
person would if compelled to strip naked in 
public. In the words of a competent author- 
ity on this subject: "The facts appear to 
prove that the feeling of shame, far from being 
the cause of man's covering his body is, on 
the contrary, a result of this custom; and 
that the covering, if not used as a protection 
[135] 



AMERICA 



from the climate, owes its origin, at least in 
many cases, to the desire of men and women 
to make themselves attractive." Strange as 
it may seem, it is nevertheless true, that a 
figure partially clad appears more indecent 
than one that is perfectly nude. 

The fourth object of clothes is ornament, 
but ornaments should be harmless, not only to 
the wearer, but also to other people; yet from 
the following paragraph, copied from one of 
the daily newspapers, it does not appear that 
they are. 

"London, May 7, The death of 
a girl from blood-poisoning caused by 
a hatpin penetrating her nose was 
inquired into at Stockport, Cheshire, 
yesterday. The deceased was Mary 
Elizabeth Thornton, aged twenty-four, 
daughter of a Stockport tradesman. 
The father said that on Saturday 
evening, April 20, his daughter was 
speaking to a friend, Mrs. Pickford, 
outside the shop. On the following 
Monday she complained of her nose 
being sore. Next day she again com- 
plained and said, "It must be the 
hatpin." While talking to Mrs. Pick- 
ford, she explained, Mrs. Pickford's 
baby stumbled on the footpath. They 



COSTUMES 



both stooped to pick it up, and a hat- 
pin in Mrs. Pickford's hat caught her 
in the nostril. His daughter gradually 
got worse and died on Saturday last. 
Mrs. Pickford, wife of a paper mer- 
chant, said that some minutes after 
the deceased had picked up the child 
she said, "Do you know, I scratched 
my nose on your hatpin ?" Mrs. 
Pickford was wearing the hatpin in 
court. It projected two inches from 
the hat and was about twelve inches 
in length. Dr. Howie Smith said that 
septic inflammation was set up as a 
result of the wound, and travelling to 
the brain caused meningitis. The cor- 
oner said that not many cases came 
before coroners in which death was 
directly traceable to the hatpin but 
there must be a very large number 
of cases in which the hatpin caused 
injury, in some cases loss of sight. 
It was no uncommon sight to see these 
deadly weapons protruding three or 
four inches from the hat. In Hamburg 
women were compelled by statute to 
put shields or protectors on the points 
of hatpins. In England nothing had 
been done, but this case showed that it 
[137] 



AMERICA 



was high time something was done. 
If women insisted on wearing hatpins 
they should take precaution of wearing 
also a shield or protector which would 
prevent them inflicting injury on other 
people. The jury returned a verdict 
of accidental death, and expressed 
their opinion that long hatpins ought 
to be done away with or their points 
protected." 
To wear jewels, necklaces of brilliants, 
precious stones and pearls, or ribbons with 
brilliants round the hair is a pleasing custom 
and a pretty sight. But to see a lady wearing 
a long gown trailing on the ground does not 
impress me as being elegant, though I under- 
stand the ladies in Europe and America think 
otherwise. It would almost seem as if their 
conceptions of beauty depended on the length 
of their skirts. In a ballroom one sometimes 
finds it very difficult not to tread on the 
ladies' skirts, and on ceremonial occasions 
each lady has two page boys to hold up the 
train of her dress. It is impossible to teach 
an Oriental to appreciate this sort of thing. 
Certainly skirts which are not made either 
for utility or comfort, and which fashion 
changes, add nothing to the wearer's beauty; 
especially does this remark apply to the 

[138] 



COSTUMES 



"hobble skirt," with its impediment to free 
movement of the legs. The ungainly "hob- 
ble skirt" compels the wearer to walk care- 
fully and with short steps, and when she 
dances she has to lift up her dress. Now the 
latest fashion seems to be the "slashed skirt" 
which, however, 'has the advantage of keeping 
the lower hem of the skirt clean. Doubtless 
this, in turn, will give place to other novelties. 
A Chinese lady, Doctor Ya Mei-kin, who has 
been educated in America, adopted while there 
the American attire, but as soon as she returned 
to China she resumed her own native dress. 
Let us hear what she has to say on this subject. 
Speaking of Western civilization she said: 
"If we keep our own mode of life it is not for 
the sake of blind conservatism. We are 
more logical in our ways than the average 
European imagines. I wear for instance this 
'ao' dress as you see, cut in one piece and 
allowing the limbs free play — because it is 
manifestly a more rational and comfortable 
attire than your fashionable skirt from Paris. 
On the other hand we are ready to assimilate 
such notions from the West as will really 
prove beneficial to us." Beauty is a matter 
of education: when you have become accus- 
tomed to anything, however quaint or queer, 
you will not think it so after a while. When 

[139] 



AMERICA 



I first went abroad and saw young girls going 
about in the streets with their hair falling 
loose over their shoulders, I was a little 
shocked. I thought how careless their 
parents must be to allow their girls to go 
out in that untidy state. Later, finding 
that it was the fashion, I changed my mind, 
until by degrees I came to think that it 
looked quite nice; thus do conventionality 
and custom change one's opinions. But it 
should be remembered that no custom or 
conventionality which sanctions the distort- 
ing of nature, or which interferes with the 
free exercise of any member of the body, 
can ever be called beautiful. It has always 
been a great wonder to me that American 
and European ladies who are by no means 
slow to help forward any movement for re- 
form, have taken no active steps to improve 
the uncouth and injurious style of their own 
clothes. How can they expect to be granted 
the privileges of men until they show their 
superiority by freeing themselves from the en- 
thrallment of the conventionalities of fashion ? 

Men's dress is by no means superior to 
the women's. It is so tight that it causes 
the wearer to suffer from the heat much 
more than is necessary, and I am certain 
that many cases of sunstroke have been 

[140] 



COSTUMES 



chiefly due to tight clothing. I must admire 
the courage of Dr. Mary Walker, an Ameri- 
can lady, who has adopted man's costume, but 
I wonder that, with her singular independence 
and ingenuity she has not introduced a better 
form of dress, instead of slavishly adopting 
the garb of the men. I speak from experi- 
ence. When I was a law student in England, 
in deference to the opinion of my English 
friends, I discarded Chinese clothes in favor 
of the European dress, but I soon found 
it very uncomfortable. In the winter it 
was not warm enough, but in summer it 
was too warm because it was so tight. Then 
I had trouble with the shoes. They gave 
me the most distressing corns. When, on 
returning to China, I resumed my own 
national costume my corns disappeared, and 
I had no more colds. I do not contend that 
the Chinese dress is perfect, but I have no 
hesitation in affirming that it is more com- 
fortable and, according to my views, very 
much prettier than the American fashions. 
It is superior to any other kind of dress that 
I have known. To appreciate the benefits 
to be derived from comfortable clothing, 
you have to wear it for a while. Dress 
should not restrain the free movement of 
every part of the body, neither should it be 
[141] 



AMERICA 



so tight as to hinder in any way the free 
circulation of the blood, or to interfere with 
the process of evaporation through the skin. 
I cannot understand why Americans, who 
are correct and cautious about most things, 
are so very careless of their own personal 
comfort in the matter of clothing. Is any- 
thing more important than that which 
concerns their health and comfort? Why 
should they continue wearing clothes which 
retard their movements, and which are so 
inconvenient that they expose the wearers to 
constant risk and danger? How can they 
consistently call themselves independent while 
they servilely follow the mandates of the dress- 
makers who periodically make money by 
inventing new fashions necessitating new 
clothes? Brave Americans, wake up! As- 
sert your freedom! 

It would be very bold, and indeed im- 
pertinent, on my part to suggest to my 
American friends that they should adopt 
the Chinese costume. It has much to rec- 
ommend it, but I must candidly confess 
that it might be improved. Why not con- 
vene an international congress to decide as 
to the best form of dress for men and women? 
Male and female delegates from all over the 
world might be invited, and samples of all 

[142] 



COSTUMES 



kinds of costumes exhibited. Out of them 
all let those which are considered the best 
for men and most suitable for women be 
recommended, with such improvements as 
the congress may deem necessary. The ad- 
vantages of a universal uniformity of cos- 
tumes would be far-reaching. There would 
be no further occasion for any one to look 
askance at another, as has frequently hap- 
pened when some stranger has been seen 
wearing what was considered an uncomely 
or unsuitable garb; universal uniformity of 
costume would also tend to draw people 
closer together, and to make them more 
friendly. Uniforms and badges promote 
brotherhood. I have enough faith in the 
American people to believe that my humble 
suggestion will receive their favorable con- 
sideration and that in due time it will be 
carried into effect. 



[143] 



CHAPTER XI 



AMERICAN VERSUS CHINESE CIVILIZATION 



HIS is a big subject. Its exhaustive 



1 treatment would require a large volume. 
In a little chapter such as this I [have no in- 
tention of doing more than to cast a glance at 
its cuff buttons and some of the frills on its 
shirt. Those who want a thesis must look 
elsewhere. 

Now what is Civilization? According to 
Webster it is "the act of civilizing or the 
state of being civilized; national culture; re- 
finement." "Civilization began with the do- 
mestication of animals," says Alfred Russell 
Wallace, but whether for the animal that was 
domesticated or for the man domesticating it 
is not clear. In a way the remark probably 
applies to both, for the commencement of 
culture, or the beginning of civilization, was 
our reclamation from a savage state. Burke 
says: "Our manners, our civilization, and all 
the good things connected with manners and 
civilization have in this European world of 
ours depended for ages upon two principles — 
the spirit of a gentleman, and the spirit of 




[144] 



CHINESE CIVILIZATION 



religion." We often hear people, especially 
Westerners, calling themselves "highly civil- 
ized," and to some extent they have good 
grounds for their claim, but do they really 
manifest the qualifications mentioned by 
Burke? Are they indeed so "highly civil- 
ized " as to be in all respects worthy paragons 
to the so-called semi-civilized nations? Have 
not some of their policies been such as can be 
characterized only as crooked and selfish ac- 
tions which less civilized peoples would not 
have thought of? I believe that every dis- 
interested reader will be able to supply con- 
firmatory illustrations for himself, but I will 
enforce the point by giving a few Chinese 
ideals of a truly civilized man : 

"He guards his body as if holding jade;" i.e., 
he will not contaminate himself with mental 
or moral filth. 

"He does not gratify his appetite, nor in his 
dwelling place does he seek ease;" i.e., he uses 
the physical without being submerged by it. 

"Without weapons he will not attack a tiger, 
nor will he dare to cross a river without a boat;" 
in other words he will never ruin himself and 
his family by purely speculative practices. 

He will "send charcoal in a snowstorm, but 
he will not add flowers to embroidery," mean- 
ing that he renders timely assistance when 

[145] 



AMERICA 



necessary, but does not curry favor by presents 
to those who do not need them. 

Our most honored heroes are said to have 
made their virtue "brilliant" and one of them 
engraved on his bath-tub the axiom — "If you 
can renovate yourself one day, do so from day 
to day. Let there be daily renovation." Our 
ideal for the ruler is that the regulation of the 
state must commence with his regulation of 
himself. 

It is too often forgotten that civilization, 
like religion, originally came from the East. 
Long before Europe and America were civil- 
ized, yea while they were still in a state of 
barbarism, there were nations in the East, 
including China, superior to them in manners, 
in education, and in government; possessed 
of a literature equal to any, and of arts and 
sciences totally unknown in the West. Self- 
preservation and self-interest make all men 
restless, and so Eastern peoples gradually 
moved to the West taking their knowledge 
with them; Western people who came into 
close contact with them learned their civiliza- 
tion. This fusion of East and West was the 
beginning of Western civilization. 

A Chinese proverb compares a pupil who 
excels his teacher to the color green, which 
originates with blue but is superior to it. 

[146] 



CHINESE CIVILIZATION 



This may aptly be applied to Westerners, for 
they originally learned literature, science, and 
other arts from the East; but they have 
proven apt pupils and have excelled their old 
masters. I wish I could find an apothegm 
concerning a former master who went back to 
school and surpassed his clever pupil. The 
non-existence of such a maxim probably in- 
dicates that no such case has as yet occurred, 
but that by no means proves that it never will. 

Coming now to particulars I would say that 
one of the distinguishing features in the 
American people which I much admire is their 
earnestness and perseverance. When they 
decide to take up anything, whether it be an 
invention or the investigation of a difficult 
problem, they display indomitable persever- 
ance and patience. Mr. Edison, for example, 
sleeps, it is said, in his factory and is inac- 
cessible for days when he has a problem to 
solve, frequently even forgetting food and 
sleep. I can only compare him to our sage 
Confucius, who, hearing a charming piece of 
music which he wanted to study, became so 
engrossed in it that for many days he forgot 
to eat, while for three months he did not 
know the taste of meat. 

The dauntless courage of the aviators, not 
only in America, but in Europe also, is a 
[147] 



AMERICA 



wonderful thing. "The toll of the air," in 
the shape of fatal accidents from aviation, 
mounts into the hundreds, and yet men are 
undeterred in the pursuit of their investiga- 
tions. With such intrepidity, perseverance, 
and genius, it is merely a question of time, 
and I hope it will not be long, when the art 
of flying, either by aeroplanes or airships, 
will be perfectly safe. When that time ar- 
rives I mean to make an air trip to America, 
and I anticipate pleasures from the novel 
experience such as I do not get from travel- 
ling by land or sea. 

The remarkable genius for organization 
observable anywhere in America arouses the 
visitor's enthusiastic admiration. One visits 
a mercantile office where a number of men 
are working at different desks in a large 
room, and marvels at the quiet and systematic 
manner in which they perform their tasks; or 
one goes to a big bank and is amazed at the 
large number of customers ever going in and 
coming out. It is difficult to calculate the 
enormous amount of business transacted every 
hour, yet all is done with perfect organization 
and a proper division of labor, so that any 
information required is furnished by the 
manager or by a clerk, at a moment's notice. 
I have often been in these places, and the 

[148] 



CHINESE CIVILIZATION 



calm, quiet, earnest way in which the em- 
ployees performed their tasks was beyond 
praise. It showed that the heads who organ- 
ized and were directing the institutions had 
a firm grasp of multiplex details. 

We Chinese have a reputation for being 
good business men. When in business on 
our own account, or in partnership with a 
few friends, we succeed marvelously well; 
but we have yet much to learn regarding 
large concerns such as corporations or joint 
stock companies. This is not to be wondered 
at, for joint stock companies and corporations 
as [conducted in the West were unknown 
in China before the advent of foreign mer- 
chants in our midst. Since then a few joint 
stock companies have been started in Hong- 
kong, Shanghai, and other ports; these have 
been carried on by Chinese exclusively, but 
the managers have not as yet mastered the 
systematic Western methods of conducting 
such concerns. Even unpractised and inex- 
pert eyes can see great room for improvement 
in the management of these businesses. Here, 
I must admit, the Japanese are ahead of us. 
Take, for instance, the Yokohama Specie 
Bank: it has a paid-up capital of Yen 30,000,- 
000 and has branches and agencies not only 
in all the important towns in Japan, but also 
[149] 



AMERICA 



in different ports in China, London, New 
York, San Francisco, Honolulu, Bombay, 
Calcutta and other places. It is conducted 
in the latest and most approved scientific 
fashion; its reports and accounts, published 
half-yearly, reveal the exact state of the 
concern's financial position and incidentally 
show that it makes enormous profits. True, 
several Chinese banks of a private or official 
nature have been established, and some of 
them have been doing a fair business, but 
candor compels me to say that they are not 
conducted as scientifically as is the Yoko- 
hama Specie Bank, or most American banks. 
Corporations and joint stock companies are 
still in their infancy in China; but Chinese 
merchants and bankers, profiting by the mis- 
takes of the past, will doubtless gradually 
improve their systems, so that in the future 
there will be less and less cause to find fault 
with them. 

One system which has been in vogue within 
the last ten or twenty years in America, and 
which has lately figured much in the lime- 
light, is that of "Trusts." Here, again, it is 
only the ingenuity of Americans which could 
have brought the system to such gigantic 
proportions as to make it possible for it to 
wield an immense influence over trade, not 

[150] 



CHINESE CIVILIZATION 



only in America but in other countries also. 
The main object of the Trust seems to be to 
combine several companies under one direc- 
tion, so as to economize expenses, regulate 
production and the price of commodities by 
destroying competition. Its advocates declare 
their policy to be productive of good to the 
world, inasmuch as it secures regular supplies 
of commodities of the best kind at fair and 
reasonable prices. On the other hand, its 
opponents contend that Trusts are injurious to 
the real interests of the public, as small com- 
panies cannot compete with them, and without 
healthy competition the consumer always 
suffers. Where experts differ it were perhaps 
wiser for me not to express an opinion lest I 
should show no more wisdom than the boy 
who argued that lobsters were black and not 
red because he had often seen them swimming 
about on the seashore, but was confuted by 
his friend who said he knew they were red and 
not black for he had seen them on his father's 
dinner table. 

The fact, however, which remains indis- 
putable, is the immense power of wealth. No 
one boycotts money. It is something no 
one seems to get enough of. I have never 
heard that multi-millionaires like Carnegie 
or Rockefeller ever expressed regrets at not 
[151] 



AMERICA 



being poor, even though they seem more eager 
to give money away than to make it. Most 
people in America are desirous for money, and 
rush every day to their business with no other 
thought than to accumulate it quickly. Their 
love of money leaves them scarcely time to 
eat, to drink, or to sleep ; waking or sleeping 
they think of nothing else. Wealth is their 
goal and when they reach it they will prob- 
ably be still unsatisfied. The Chinese are, of 
course, not averse to wealth. They can en- 
joy the jingling coin as much as anyone, but 
money is not their only thought. They carry 
on their business calmly and quietly, and they 
are very patient. I trust they will always 
retain these habits and never feel any temp- 
tation to imitate the Americans in their mad 
chase after money. 

There is, however, one American charac- 
teristic my countrymen might learn with 
profit, and that is the recognition of the fact 
that punctuality is the soul of business. 
Americans know this; it is one cause of their 
success. Make an appointment with an Amer- 
ican and you will find him in his office at the 
appointed time. Everything to be done by 
him during the course of the day has its fixed 
hour, and hence he is able to accomplish a 
greater amount of work in a given time than 

[152] 



CHINESE CIVILIZATION 



many others. Chinese, unfortunately, have 
no adequate conceptions of the value of time. 
This is due, perhaps, to our mode of reckon- 
ing. In the West a day is divided into 
twenty-four hours, and each hour into sixty 
minutes, but in China it has been for centuries 
the custom to divide day and night into twelve 
(shih) "periods" of two hours each, so that 
an appointment is not made for a particular 
minute, as in America, but for one or other 
of these two-hour periods. This has created 
ingrained habits of unpunctuality which clocks 
and watches and contact with foreigners are 
slow to remove. The time-keeping railway 
is, however, working a revolution, especially 
in places where there is only one train a day, 
and a man who misses that has to wait for 
the morrow before he can resume his journey. 

Some years ago a luncheon — "tiffin" we 
call it in China — was given in my honor at 
a Peking restaurant by a couple of friends; 
the hour was fixed at noon sharp. I arrived 
on the stroke of twelve, but found that not 
only were none of the guests there, but that 
even the hosts themselves were absent. As 
I had several engagements I did not wait, but I 
ordered a few dishes and ate what I required. 
None of the hosts had made their appearance 
by the time I had finished, so I left with a 
[153] 



AMERICA 



request to the waiter that he would convey 
my thanks. 

Knowing the unpunctuality of our people, 
the conveners of a public meeting will often 
tell the Chinese that it will begin an hour 
or two before the set time, whereas foreigners 
are notified of the exact hour. Not being 
aware of this device I once attended a con- 
ference at the appointed time, only to find that 
I had to wait for over an hour. I protested 
that in future I should be treated as a foreigner 
in this regard. 

As civilized people have always found it 
necessary to wear clothes I ought not to omit 
a reference to them here, but in view of what 
has already been said in the previous chapter 
I shall at this juncture content myself with 
quoting Mrs. M. S. G. Nichols, an English 
lady who has written on this subject. She 
characterizes the clothing of men as unbeau- 
tiful, but she principally devotes her atten- 
tion to the dress of women. I quote the 
following from her book: 1 "The relation 
of a woman's dress to her health is seldom con- 
sidered, still less is it contemplated as to its 
effect upon the health of her children; yet 

1 "The Clothes Question Considered in its Relation to 
Beauty, Comfort and Health," by Mrs. M. S. G. Nichols. Pub- 
lished in London, 32 Fopstone Road, Earl's Court, S. W. 

[154] 



THE DRESS WORN BY CHINESE LADIES ON 
CEREMONIAL OCCASIONS 
' First, use, then beauty, flowing from, or in harmony with, 



CHINESE CIVILIZATION 



everyone must see that all that concerns the 
mothers of our race is important. The cloth- 
ing of woman should be regarded in every 
aspect if we wish to see its effect upon her 
health, and consequently upon the health of 
her offspring. The usual way is to consider 
the beauty or fashion of dress first, its com- 
fort and healthfulness afterward, if at all. 
We must reverse this method. First, use, 
then beauty, flowing from, or in harmony 
with, use. That is the true law of life " (p. 14). 
On page 23 she continues : "A great deal more 
clothing is worn by women in some of fashion's 
phases than is needed for warmth, and mostly 
in the form of heavy skirts dragging down upon 
the hips. The heavy trailing skirts also are 
burdens upon the spine. Such evils of wom- 
en's clothes, especially in view of maternity, 
can hardly be over-estimated. The pains 
and perils that attend birth are heightened, 
if not caused, by improper clothing. The 
nerves of the spine and the maternal system 
of nerves become diseased together." And 
on page 32 she writes: "When I first went 
to an evening party in a fashionable town, 
I was shocked at seeing ladies with low 
dresses, and I cannot even now like to see a 
man, justly called a rake, looking at the half- 
exposed bosom of a lady. There is no doubt 

[155] 



AMERICA 



that too much clothing is an evil, as well as 
too little; but clothing that swelters or leaves 
us with a cold are both lesser evils than the 
exposure of esoteric charms to stir the already 
heated blood of the rout. What we have to 
do, as far as fashion and the public opinion 
it forms will allow, is to suit our clothing to 
our climate, and to be truly modest and 
healthful in our attire." Mrs. Nichols, speak- 
ing from her own experience, has naturally 
devoted her book largely to a condemnation of 
woman's dress, but man's dress as worn in the 
West is just as bad. The dreadful high col- 
lar and tight clothes which are donned all the 
year round, irrespective of the weather, must 
be very uncomfortable. Men wear nearly 
the same kind of clothing at all seasons of the 
year. That might be tolerated in the frigid 
or temperate zones, but should not the style 
be changed in the tropical heat of summer 
common to the Eastern countries? I did not 
notice that men made much difference in their 
dress in summer; I have seen them, when the 
thermometer was ranging between 80 and 90, 
wearing a singlet shirt, waistcoat and coat. 
The coat may not have been as thick as that 
worn in winter, still it was made of serge, wool 
or some similarly unsuitable stuff. However 
hot the weather might be it was seldom that 

[156] 



CHINESE CIVILIZATION 



anyone was to be seen on the street without 
a coat. No wonder we frequently hear of 
deaths from sunstroke or heat, a fatality al- 
most unknown among the Chinese. 1 

Chinese dress changes with the seasons, 
varying from the thickest fur to the lightest 
gauze. In winter we wear fur or garments 
lined with cotton wadding; in spring we don 
a lighter fur or some other thinner garment; 
in summer we use silk, gauze or grass cloth, 
according to the weather. Our fashions are 
set by the weather; not by the arbitrary 
decrees of dressmakers and tailors from Pe- 
king or elsewhere. The number of deaths 
in America and in Europe every year, result- 
ing from following the fashion must, I fear, be 
considerable, although of course no doctor 
would dare in his death certificate to assign 
unsuitable clothing as the cause of the de- 
cease of a patient. 

Even in the matter of dressing, and in this 
twentieth century, "might is right." In the 
opinion of an impartial observer the dress of 
man is queer, and that of woman, uncouth; 
but as all nations in Europe and America are 
wearing the same kind of dress, mighty Con- 

1 There have been a few cases of Chinese workmen who through 
carelessness have exposed themselves by working in the sun; but 
such cases are rare. 

[157] 



AMERICA 



ventionality is extending its influence, so 
that even some natives of the East have dis- 
carded their national dress in favor of the 
uglier Western attire. If the newly adopted 
dress were, if no better than, at least equal to, 
the old one in beauty and comfort, it might 
be sanctioned for the sake of uniformity, as 
suggested in the previous chapter; but when 
it is otherwise why should we imitate? Why 
should the world assume a depressing mo- 
notony of costume? Why should we allow 
nature's diversities to disappear? Formerly 
a Chinese student when returning from Eu- 
rope or America at once resumed his national 
dress, for if he dared to continue to favor the 
Western garb he was looked upon as a "half- 
foreign devil." Since the establishment of 
the Chinese Republic in 1911, this sentiment 
has entirely changed, and the inelegant for- 
eign dress is no longer considered fantastic; on 
the contrary it has become a fashion, not only 
in cities where foreigners are numerous, but 
even in interior towns and villages where they 
are seldom seen. 

Chinese ladies, like their Japanese sis- 
ters, have not yet, to their credit be it said, 
become obsessed by this new fashion, which 
shows that they have more common sense 
than some men. I have, however, seen a 

[158] 



CHINESE CIVILIZATION 



few young and foolish girls imitating the for- 
eign dress of Western women. Indeed this 
craze for Western fashion has even caught 
hold of our legislators in Peking, who, hav- 
ing fallen under the spell of clothes, in 
solemn conclave decided that the frock coat, 
with the tall-top hat, should in future be 
the official uniform; and the swallow-tail 
coat with a white shirt front the evening 
dress in China. I need hardly say that this 
action of the Peking Parliament aroused uni- 
versal surprise and indignation. How could 
the scholars and gentry in the interior, where 
foreign tailors are unknown, be expected to 
dress in frock coats at formal ceremonies, or 
to attend public entertainments in swallow- 
tails? Public meetings were held to discuss 
the subject, and the new style of dress was 
condemned as unsuitable. At the same time it 
was thought by many that the present dresses 
of men and women leave much room for im- 
provement. It should be mentioned that as 
soon as it was known that the dress uniform 
was under discussion in Parliament, the silk, 
hat and other trades guilds, imitating the 
habits of the wide-world which always every- 
where considers self first, fearing that the 
contemplated change in dress might injur- 
iously affect their respective interests, sent 
[159] 



AMERICA 



delegates to Peking to "lobby" the members 
to "go slow" and not to introduce too radical 
changes. The result was that in addition to 
the two forms of dress above mentioned, two 
more patterns were authorized, one for man's 
ordinary wear and the other for women, both 
following Chinese styles, but all to be made 
of home-manufactured material. This was to 
soothe the ruffled feelings of the manufac- 
turers and traders, for in purchasing a foreign 
suit some of the materials at least, if not all, 
must be of foreign origin or foreign make. 

During a recent visit to Peking I protested 
against this novel fashion, and submitted a 
memorandum to President Yuan with a re- 
quest that it should be transmitted to Parlia- 
ment. My suggestion is that the frock-coat 
and evening-dress regulation should be op- 
tional, and that the Chinese dress uniform as 
sketched by me in my memorandum should 
be adopted as an alternative. 1 I am in hopes 
that my suggestion will be favorably consid- 
ered. The point I have taken is that Chinese 
diplomats and others who go abroad should, in 
order to avoid curiosity, and for the sake of 
uniformity, adopt Western dress, and that 
those who are at home, if they prefer the ugly 
change, should be at liberty to adopt it, but 

1 The sketch shows the new uniform proposed. 

[160] 




THE UNIFORM SUGGESTED BY THE AUTHOR AND LAID BEFORE 
THE PRESIDENT AND PARLIAMENT 



CHINESE CIVILIZATION 



that it should not be compulsory on others who 
object to suffering from cold in winter, or to 
being liable to sunstroke in summer. I have 
taken this middle course in order to satisfy 
both sides; for it would be difficult to induce 
Parliament to abolish or alter what has been 
so recently fixed by them. The Chinese 
dress, as is well known all over the world, is 
superior to that worn by civilized people in 
the West, and the recent change favored by 
the Chinese is deplored by most foreigners 
in China. The following paragraph, written 
by a foreign merchant and published in one 
of the Shanghai papers, expresses the opinion 
of almost all intelligent foreigners on this 
subject : 

"Some time back the world was jubilant 
over the news that among the great reforms 
adopted in China was the discarding of the 
Chinese tunic, that great typical national 
costume. 'They are indeed getting civilized,' 
said the gossip; and one and all admired the 
energy displayed by the resolute Young 
China in coming into line with the civilized 
world, adopting even our uncomfortable, 
anti-hygienic and anti-esthetic costume. 

"Foreign fashioned tailor shops, hat stores, 
shoemakers, etc., sprang up all over the 
country. When I passed through Canton in 

[161] 



AMERICA 



September last, I could not help noticing also 
that those typical streets lined with boat- 
shaped, high-soled shoes, had been replaced 
by foreign-style boot and shoemakers. 

"Undoubtedly the reform was gaining 
ground and the Chinese would have to be in 
the future depicted dressed up as a Caucasian. 

"In my simplicity I sincerely confess I 
could not but deplore the passing away of the 
century-old tunic, so esthetic, so comfortable, 
so rich, so typical of the race. In my heart 
I was sorry for the change, as to my concep- 
tion it was not in the dress where the Chinese 
had to seek reform." 

I agree with this writer that it is not in the 
domain of dress that we Chinese should 
learn from the Western peoples. There are 
many things in China which could be very 
well improved but certainly not dress. 



[162] 



CHAPTER XII 



AMERICAN VERSUS CHINESE CIVILIZATION 



HE question has often been asked "Which 



1 are the civilized nations?" And the an- 
swer has been, "All Europe and America." 
To the query, "What about the nations in the 
East?" the answer has been made that with 
the exception of Japan, who has now become a 
great civilized power, the other nations are 
more or less civilized. When the matter is 
further pressed and it is asked, "What about 
China?" the general reply is, "She is semi- 
civilized," or in other words, not so civilized 
as the nations in the West. 

Before pronouncing such an opinion justi- 
fiable, let us consider the plain facts. I take 
it that civilization inculcates culture, refine- 
ment, humane conduct, fair dealing and just 
treatment. Amiel says, "Civilization is first 
and foremost a moral thing." There is no 
doubt that the human race, especially in the 
West, has improved wonderfully within the 
last century. Many inventions and discover- 
ies have been made, and men are now able to 



{Continued) 




[163] 



AMERICA 



enjoy comforts which could not have been 
obtained before. 

From a material point of view we have 
certainly progressed, but do the "civilized" 
people in the West live longer than the so- 
called semi-civilized races? Have they suc- 
ceeded in prolonging their lives? Are they 
happier than others? I should like to hear 
their answers. Is it not a fact that Ameri- 
cans are more liable to catch cold than Asi- 
atics; with the least change of air, and with 
the slightest appearance of an epidemic are 
they not more easily infected than Asiatics? 
If so, why? With their genius for invention 
why have they not discovered means to 
safeguard themselves so that they can live 
longer on this earth? Again, can Ameri- 
cans say that they are happier than the 
Chinese? From personal observation I have 
formed the opinion that the Chinese are 
more contented than Americans, and on the 
whole happier; and certainly one meets more 
old people in China than in America. Since 
the United States of America is rich, well 
governed, and provided with more material 
comforts than China, Americans, one would 
think, should be happier than we are, but are 
they? Are there not many in their midst 
who are friendless and penurious? In China 

[164] 



CHINESE CIVILIZATION 



no man is without friends, or if he is, it is his 
own fault. "Virtue is never friendless," said 
Confucius, and, as society is constituted in 
China, this is literally true. If this is not 
so in America I fear there is something wrong 
with that boasted civilization, and that their 
material triumphs over the physical forces of 
nature have been paid dearly for by a loss of 
insight into her profound spiritualities. Per- 
haps some will understand when I quote Lao 
Tsze's address to Confucius on "Simplicity." 
"The chaff from winnowing will blind a man. 
Mosquitoes will bite a man and keep him 
awake all night, and so it is with all the talk of 
yours about charity and duty to one's neigh- 
bor, it drives one crazy. Sir, strive to keep 
the world in its original simplicity — why so 
much fuss? The wind blows as it listeth, so 
let virtue establish itself. The swan is white 
without a daily bath, and the raven is black 
without dyeing itself. When the pond is 
dry and the fishes are gasping for breath it is 
of no use to moisten them with a little water 
or a little sprinkling. Compared to their 
original and simple condition in the pond and 
the rivers it is nothing." 

Henry Ward Beecher says, "Wealth may 
not produce civilization, but civilization pro- 
duces money," and in my opinion while 
[165] 



AMERICA 



wealth may be used to promote happiness and 
health it as often injures both. Happiness 
is the product of liberality, intelligence and 
service to others, and the reflex of happiness 
is health. My contention is that the people 
who possess these good qualities in the greatest 
degree are the most civilized. Now civiliza- 
tion, as mentioned in the previous chapter, 
was born in the East and travelled westward. 
The law of nature is spiral, and inasmuch as 
Eastern civilization taught the people of the 
West, so Western civilization, which is based 
upon principles native to the East, will return 
to its original source. No nation can now re- 
main shut up within itself without inter- 
course with other nations; the East and 
the West can no longer exist separate and 
apart. The new facilities for transportation 
and travel by land and water bring all nations, 
European, American, Asiatic and African, 
next door to each other, and when the art of 
aviation is more advanced and people travel 
in the air as safely as they now cross oceans, 
the relationships of nations will become still 
closer. 

What effect will this have on mankind? 
The first effect will be, I should say, 
greater stability. As interests become com- 
mon, destructive combats will vanish. All 

[166] 



CHINESE CIVILIZATION 



alike will be interested in peace. It is a 
gratifying sign that within recent years the 
people of America have taken a prominent 
part in peace movements, and have inaugur- 
ated peace congresses, the members of which 
represent different sections of the country. 
Annual gatherings of this order must do much 
to prevent war and to perpetuate peace, 
by turning people's thoughts in the right di- 
rection. Take, for instance, the Lake Mo- 
honk Conference on International Arbitration, 
which was started by a private gentleman, 
Mr. A. K. Smiley, who was wont every year 
to invite prominent officials and others to his 
beautiful summer place at Lake Mohonk for a 
conference. He has passed away, to the re- 
gret of his many friends, but the good move- 
ment still continues, and the nineteenth an- 
nual conference was held under the auspices 
of his brother, Mr. Daniel Smiley. Among 
those present, there were not only eminent 
Americans, such as Dr. C. W. Eliot, President 
Emeritus of Harvard University, Ex-Ameri- 
can Ambassador C. Tower, Dr. J. Taylor, 
President of Vassar College, and Dr. Lyman 
Abbott, but distinguished foreigners such as 
J. A. Baker, M. P., of England, Herr Heinrich 
York Steiner, of Vienna, and many others. 
Among the large number of people who sup- 
[167] 



AMERICA 



port this kind of movement, and the number 
is increasing every day, the name of Mr. 
Andrew Carnegie stands out very promin- 
ently. This benevolent gentleman is a most 
vigorous advocate of International Peace, and 
has spent most of his time and money for that 
purpose. He has given ten million dollars 
(gold) for the purpose of establishing the 
Carnegie Peace Fund; the first paragraph in 
his long letter to the trustees is worthy of 
reproduction, as it expresses his strong con- 
victions : 

"I have transferred to you," he says, "as 
Trustees of the Carnegie Peace Fund, ten 
million dollars of five per cent, mortgage 
bonds, the revenue of which is to be admin- 
istered by you to hasten the abolition of 
international war, the foulest blot upon our 
civilization. Although we no longer eat our 
fellowmen nor torture our prisoners, nor 
sack cities, killing their inhabitants, we still 
kill each other in war like barbarians. Only 
wild beasts are excusable for doing that in 
this the Twentieth Century of the Christian 
era, for the crime of war is inherent, since it 
decides not in favor of the right, but always 
of the strong. The nation is criminal which 
refuses arbitration and drives its adversary 

[168] 



CHINESE CIVILIZATION 



to a tribunal which knows nothing of right- 
eous judgment." 

I am glad to say that I am familiar with 
many American magazines and journals 
which are regularly published to advocate 
peace, and I have no doubt that in every 
country similar movements are stirring, for 
the nations are beginning to realize the dis- 
astrous effects of war. If I am not mistaken, 
however, Americans are the most active in 
this matter. The Permanent Court of Arbi- 
tration at The Hague, whose members belong 
to nearly every nation, is a significant index 
of the spirit of the times. Yet what an irony 
of fate that while people are so active in per- 
petuating peace they cannot preserve it. 
Look at the recent wars in Europe, first 
between Italy and Turkey, and afterward in 
the Balkans, to say nothing of disturbances 
in China and other parts of the world. It is 
just like warning a child not to take poison 
and then allowing him to swallow it and die. 
Sensible men should consider this question 
calmly and seriously. We all agree as to 
the wickedness of war and yet we war with 
one another; we do not like war yet we cannot 
help war. There is surely some hidden de- 
fect in the way we have been brought up. 

Is not the slogan of nationality, to a great 
[169] 



AMERICA 



extent, the root of the evil? Every school- 
boy and schoolgirl is taught the duty of devo- 
tion, or strong attachment, to his or her own 
country, and every statesman or public man 
preaches the doctrine of loyalty to one's 
native land; while the man who dares to 
render service to another country, the inter- 
ests of which are opposed to the interests of 
his own land, is denounced a traitor. In 
such cases the individual is never allowed an 
opinion as to the right or wrong of the dispute. 
He is expected to support his own country 
and to cry at all times, "Our country, right 
or wrong." A politician's best chance to 
secure votes is to gloss over the faults of 
his own party or nation, to dilate on the wick- 
edness of his neighbors and to exhort his com- 
patriots to be loyal to their national flag. 
Can it be wondered at that men who are 
imbued with such doctrines become selfish 
and narrow-minded and are easily involved 
in quarrels with other nations? 

Patriotism is, of course, the national life. 
Twenty-four centuries ago, speaking in the 
Greek Colony of Naxos, Pythagoras described 
this emotion in the following eloquent pas- 
sage: "Listen, my children, to what the State 
should be to the good citizen. It is more than 
father or mother, it is more than husband or 

[170] 



CHINESE CIVILIZATION 



wife, it is more than child or friend. The 
State is the father and mother of all, is the 
wife of the husband and the husband of the 
wife. The family is good, and good is the joy 
of the man in wife and in son. But greater is 
the State, which is the protector of all, with- 
out which the home would be ravaged and 
destroyed. Dear to the good man is the honor 
of the woman who bore him, dear the honor 
of the wife whose children cling to his knees ; 
but dearer should be the honor of the State 
that keeps safe the wife and the child. It is 
the State from which comes all that makes 
your life prosperous, and gives you beauty 
and safety. Within the State are built up the 
arts, which make the difference between the 
barbarian and the man. If the brave man 
dies gladly for the hearthstone, far more 
gladly should he die for the State." 

But only when the State seeks the good of 
the governed, for said Pythagoras on another 
occasion: "Organized society exists for the 
happiness and welfare of its members; and 
where it fails to secure these it stands ipso 
facto condemned." 

But to-day should the State be at war with 
another, and any citizen or section of citizens 
believe their own country wrong and the op- 
posing nation wronged, they dare not say so, 
[171] 



AMERICA 



or if they do they run great risk of being pun- 
ished for treason. Men and women though no 
longer bought and sold in the market place 
are subjected to subtler forms of serfdom. In 
most European countries they are obliged to 
fight whether they will or not, and irrespective 
of their private convictions about the dispute; 
even though, as is the case in some European 
countries, they may be citizens from compul- 
sion rather than choice, they are not free to 
abstain from active participation in the 
quarrel. Chinese rebellions are said to "live 
on loot," i.e., on the forcible confiscation of 
private property, but is that worse than 
winning battles on the forcible deprivation of 
personal liberty? This is nationalism gone 
mad! It fosters the desire for territory 
grabbing and illustrates a fundamental differ- 
ence between the Orient and the Occident. 
With us government is based on the consent 
of the governed in a way that the Westerner 
can hardly understand, for his passion to 
expand is chronic. Small nations which are 
over-populated want territory for their sur- 
plus population; great nations desire terri- 
tory to extend their trade, and when there 
are several great powers to divide the spoil 
they distribute it among themselves and call 
it "spheres of influence," and all in honor of 

[172] 



CHINESE CIVILIZATION 



the god Commerce. In China the funda- 
mentals of our social system are brotherhood 
and the dignity of labor. 

What, I ask, is the advantage of adding to 
national territory? Let us examine the ques- 
tion calmly. If a town or a province is 
seized the conqueror has to keep a large army 
to maintain peace and order, and unless the 
people are well disposed to the new authority 
there will be constant trouble and friction. 
All this, I may say, in passing, is opposed to 
our Confucian code which bases everything 
on reason and abhors violence. We would 
rather argue with a mob and find out, if 
possible, its point of view, than fire on it. 
We have yet to be convinced that good re- 
sults flow from the use of the sword and the 
cannon. Western nations know no other 
compulsion. 

If, however, the acquisition of new terri- 
tory arises from a desire to develop the country 
and to introduce the most modern and im- 
proved systems of government, without ulte- 
rior intentions, then it is beyond praise, but 
I fear that such disinterested actions are 
rare. The nearest approach to such high 
principle is the purchase of the Philippine 
Islands by the United States. I call it 
"purchase" because the United States Gov- 
[173] 



AMERICA 



eminent paid a good price for the Islands 
after having seized the territory. The inten- 
tions of the Government were well known at 
the time. Since her acquisition of those 
Islands, America has been doing her best to de- 
velop their resources and expand their trade. 
Administrative and judicial reforms have 
been introduced, liberal education has been 
given to the natives, who are being trained 
for self-government. It has been repeatedly 
and authoritatively declared by the United 
States that as soon as they are competent to 
govern themselves without danger of disturb- 
ances, and are able to establish a stable gov- 
ernment, America will grant independence to 
those islands. I believe that when the proper 
time comes she will fulfill her word, and thus 
set a noble example to the world. 

The British in Hongkong afford an illus- 
tration of a different order, proving the truth 
of my contention that, excepting as a sphere 
for the exercise of altruism, the acquisition 
of new territories is an illusive gain. When 
Hongkong was ceded to Great Britain at the 
conclusion of a war in which China was de- 
feated, it was a bare island containing only 
a few fishermen's huts. In order to make it 
a trading port and encourage people to live 
there, the British Government spent large 

[174] 



CHINESE CIVILIZATION 



sums of money year after year for its im- 
provement and development, and through 
the wise administration of the local Govern- 
ment every facility was afforded for free 
trade. It is now a prosperous British colony 
with a population of nearly half a million. 
But what have been the advantages to Great 
Britain? Financially she has been a great 
loser, for the Island which she received at the 
close of her war with China was for many 
years a great drain on her national treasury. 
Now Hongkong is a self-supporting colony, 
but what benefits do the British enjoy there 
that do not belong to everyone else? The 
colony is open to all foreigners, and every 
right which a British merchant has is equally 
shared with everyone else. According to the 
census of 1911, out of a population of 456,739 
only 12,075 were non-Chinese, of whom a 
small portion were British; the rest were Chi- 
nese. Thus the prosperity of that colony de- 
pends upon the Chinese who, it is needless 
to say, are in possession of all the privileges 
that are enjoyed by British residents. It 
should be noticed that the number of foreign 
firms and stores (i.e., non-British) have been 
and are increasing, while big British hongs are 
less numerous than before. Financially, the 
British people have certainly not been gainers 
[175] 



AMERICA 



by the acquisition of that colony. Of course 
I shall be told that it adds to the prestige of 
Great Britain, but this is an empty, bump- 
tious boast dearly paid for by the British 
tax-payer. 

From an economic and moral point of 
view, however, I must admit that a great 
deal of good has been done by the British 
Government in Hongkong. It has provided 
the Chinese with an actual working model 
of a Western system of government which, 
notwithstanding many difficulties, has suc- 
ceeded in transforming a barren island into a 
prosperous town, which is now the largest 
shipping port in China. The impartial admin- 
istration of law and the humane treatment of 
criminals cannot but excite admiration and 
gain the confidence of the natives. If the 
British Government, in acquiring the desert 
island, had for its purpose the instruction of 
the natives in a modern system of govern- 
ment, she is to be sincerely congratulated, 
but it is feared that her motives were less 
altruistic. 

These remarks apply equally, if not with 
greater force, to the other colonies or pos- 
sessions in China under the control of Eu- 
ropean Powers, as well as to the other col- 
onies of the British Empire, such as Aus- 

[176] 



CHINESE CIVILIZATION 



tralia, New Zealand, Canada, and others 
which are called "self-governing dominions." 
The Imperial Government feels very tender 
toward these colonists, and practically they 
are allowed to manage their affairs as they 
like. Since they are so generously treated 
and enjoy the protection of so great a power, 
there is no fear that these self-governing 
dominions will ever become independent of 
their mother country; but if they ever should 
do so, it is most improbable that she would 
declare war against them, as the British 
people have grown wiser since their experi- 
ence with the American colonists. British 
statesmen have been awakened to the neces- 
sity of winning the good-will of their colo- 
nists, and within recent years have adopted 
the policy of inviting the Colonial premiers 
to London to discuss questions affecting 
Imperial and Colonial interests. Imperial 
federation seems to be growing popular with 
the British and it is probable that in the 
future England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland 
will each have its own parliament, with an 
Imperial Parliament, sitting at Westmin- 
ster, containing representatives from all parts 
of the British Empire, but America is the 
only nation which has added to her responsi- 
bilities with the avowed purpose of making 

[177] 



AMERICA 



semi-civilized tribes independent, self-govern- 
ing colonies, and America is almost the only 
great power that has never occupied or held 
territory in China. 

Let me ask again what is the object of 
nations seeking new possessions? Is it for 
the purpose of trade? If so, the object can 
be obtained without acquiring territory. In 
these days of enlightenment anyone can go 
to any country and trade without restriction, 
and in the British colonies the alien is in 
the same position as the native. He is not 
hampered by "permits" or other "red-tape" 
methods. Is it for the purpose of emigration ? 
In Europe, America and all the British colo- 
nies, so far as I know, white people, unless 
they are paupers or undesirables, can emigrate 
to any country and after a short period be- 
come naturalized. 

Some statesmen would say that it is neces- 
sary for a great power to have naval bases or 
coaling stations in several parts of the world. 
This presupposes preparations for war; but if 
international peace were maintained, such 
possessions would be useless and the money 
spent on them wasted. In any case it is 
unproductive expenditure. It is the fashion 
for politicians (and I am sorry to find them 
supported by eminent statesmen) to preach 

[178] 



CHINESE CIVILIZATION 



the doctrine of armaments; they allege that 
in order to preserve peace it is necessary to be 
prepared for war, that a nation with a large 
army or navy commands respect, and that 
her word carries weight. This argument cuts 
both ways, for a nation occupying such a 
commanding position may be unreasonable 
and a terror to weaker nations. If this high- 
toned doctrine continues where will it end? 
We shall soon see every nation arming to the 
teeth for the sake of her national honor and 
safety, and draining her treasury for the pur- 
pose of building dreadnaughts and providing 
armaments. When such a state of things 
exists can international peace be perpetuated ? 
Will not occasion be found to test those war 
implements and to utilize the naval and mili- 
tary men ? When you purchase a knife don't 
you expect to use it? Mr. Lloyd George, the 
English Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a 
speech in which he lamented the ever- 
increasing but unnecessary expenditure on 
armaments, said in Parliament: "I feel confi- 
dent that it will end in a great disaster — I 
won't say to this country, though it is just 
possible that it may end in a disaster here." 
A man with a revolver sometimes invites 
attack, lest what was at first intended only 
for a defense should become a menace. 

[179] 



AMERICA 



When discussing the craze of the Western 
nations for adding to their territories I said 
that white people can emigrate to any foreign 
country that they please, but it is not so with 
the yellow race. It has been asserted with 
authority that some countries are reserved 
exclusively for the white races, and with this 
object in view laws have been enacted pro- 
hibiting the natives of Asia from becoming 
naturalized citizens, besides imposing very 
strict and almost prohibitory regulations re- 
garding their admission. Those who support 
such a policy hold that they, the white people, 
are superior to the yellow people in intellect, 
in education, in taste, and in habits, and that 
the yellow people are unworthy to associate 
with them. Yet in China we have manners, 
we have arts, we have morals, and we have 
managed a fairly large society for thousands 
of years without the bitter class hatreds, class 
divisions, and class struggles that have marred 
the fair progress of the West. We have not 
enslaved our lives to wealth. We like luxury 
but we like other things better. We love 
life more than chasing imitations of life. 

Our differences of color, like our differences 
of speech, are accidental, they are due to 
climatic and other influences. We came orig- 
inally from one stock. We all started evenly, 

[180] 



CHINESE CIVILIZATION 



Heaven has no favorites. Man alone has 
made differences between man and man, and 
the yellow man is no whit inferior to the 
white people in intelligence. During the 
Russo-Japan War was it not the yellow race 
that displayed the superior intelligence? I 
am sometimes almost tempted to say that 
Asia will have to civilize the West over again. 
I am not bitter or sarcastic, but I do contend 
that there are yet many things that the white 
races have to learn from their colored brethren. 
In India, in China, and in Japan there are in- 
stitutions which have a stability unknown out- 
side Asia. Religion has apparently little in- 
fluence on Western civilization; it is the cor- 
ner-stone of society in all Asiatic civilizations. 
The result is that the colored races place 
morality in the place assigned by their more 
practical white confreres to economic proposi- 
tions. We think, as we contemplate the West, 
that white people do not understand comfort 
because they have no leisure to enjoy content- 
ment; they measure life by accumulation, we 
by morality. Family ties are stronger with 
the so-called colored races than they are 
among the more irresponsible white races; 
consequently the social sense is keener among 
the former and much individual suffering is 
avoided. We have our vices, but these are 
[181] 



AMERICA 



not peculiar to us; and, at least, we have the 
merit of being easily governed. Wherever 
there are Chinese colonies the general verdict 
is: "The Chinese make good citizens." 

This is what the late Sir Robert Hart, to 
whom China owes her Customs organization, 
said about us: 

"They (the Chinese) are well-behaved, 
law-abiding, intelligent, economical, and in- 
dustrious; they can learn anything and do 
anything; they are punctiliously polite, they 
worship talent, and they believe in right so 
firmly that they scorn to think it requires to 
be supported or enforced by might; they 
delight in literature, and everywhere they 
have their literary clubs and coteries for learn- 
ing and discussing each other's essays and 
verses ; they possess and practise an admirable 
system of ethics, and they are generous, 
charitable, and fond of good work; they never 
forget a favor, they make rich return for any 
kindness, and though they know money will 
buy service, a man must be more than 
wealthy to win esteem and respect; they are 
practical, teachable, and wonderfully gifted 
with common sense; they are excellent arti- 
sans, reliable workmen, and of a good faith that 
everyone acknowledges and admires in their 
commercial dealings; in no country that is or 

[182] 



CHINESE CIVILIZATION 



was, has the commandment 'Honor thy 
father and thy mother,' been so religiously 
obeyed, or so fuFy and without exception 
given effect to, and it is in fact the keynote 
of their family, social, official and national 
life, and because it is so their days are long in 
the land God has given them." 

The cry of "America for the Americans" 
or " Australia for the Australians" is most 
illogical, for those people were not the original 
owners of the soil; with far greater reason we in 
the far East might shout, "China for the 
Chinese," "Japan for the Japanese." I will 
quote Mr. T. S. Sutton, English Secretary of 
the Chinese-American League of Justice, on 
this point. "The most asinine whine in the 
world, " he says, "is that of 'America for the 
Americans' or 'China for the Chinese,' etc. 
It is the hissing slogan of greed, fear, envy, 
selfishness, ignorance and prejudice. No man, 
no human being who calls himself a man, no 
Christian, no sane or reasonable person, should 
or could ever be guilty of uttering that des- 
picable wail. God made the world for all 
men, and if God has any preference, if God is 
any respecter of persons, He must surely favor 
the Chinese, for He has made more of them 
than of any other people on the globe. * Amer- 
ica for the aboriginal Indians' was once the 

[183] 



AMERICA 



cry. Then when the English came over it 
changed to 'America for the English/ later 
'America for the Puritans/ and around New 
Orleans they cried 'America for the French.' In 
Pennsylvania the slogan was 'America for the 
Dutch/ etc., but the truth remains that God 
has set aside America as 'the melting pot' 
of the world, the land to which all people may 
come, and from which there has arisen, and 
will continue to arise, a great mixed race, a 
cosmopolitan nation that may, if it is not 
misled by prejudice and ignorance, yet lead 
the world." Although Mr. Sutton's phrase- 
ology is somewhat strong, his arguments are 
sound and unanswerable. 

I now pass to some less controversial aspects 
of my theme, and note a praiseworthy custom 
that is practically unknown in the Far East. 
I refer to the habit of international marriages 
which are not only common in cosmopolitan 
America but are of daily occurrence in Europe 
also, among ordinary people as well as the 
royal families of Europe, so that nearly all 
the European courts are related one to the 
other. This is a good omen for a permanent 
world-peace. There have been some marriages 
of Asiatics with Europeans and Americans, 
and they should be encouraged. Everything 
that brings the East and West together and 

[184] 



CHINESE CIVILIZATION 



helps each to understand the other better, is 
good. The offspring from such mixed unions 
inherit the good points of both sides. The head 
master of the Queen's College in Hongkong, 
where there are hundreds of boys of different 
nationalities studying together, once told me 
that formerly at the yearly examination the 
prizes were nearly all won by the Chinese 
students, but that in later years when Eurasian 
boys were admitted, they beat the Chinese 
and all the others, and generally came out the 
best. Not only in school but in business also 
they have turned out well. It is well known 
that the richest man in Hongkong is a 
Eurasian. It is said that the father of Agui- 
naldo, the well-known Philippine leader, was 
a Chinese. There is no doubt that mixed 
marriages of the white with the yellow races 
will be productive of good to both sides. 
But do Chinese really make good husbands? 
my lady friends ask. I will cite the case of 
an American lady. Some years ago a Chinese 
called on me at my Legation in Washington 
accompanied by an American lady and a girl. 
The lady was introduced to me as his wife and 
the girl as his daughter; I naturally supposed 
that the lady was the girl's mother, but she 
told me that the girl was the daughter of her 
late intimate friend, and that after her death, 
[185] 



AMERICA 



knowing that the child's father had been a 
good and affectionate husband to her friend, 
she had gladly become his second wife, and 
adopted his daughter. 

Those who believe in reincarnation (and 
I hope most of my readers do, as it is a clue 
to many mysteries) understand that when 
people are reincarnated they are not always 
born in the same country or continent as 
that in which they lived in their previous 
life. I have an impression that in one of my 
former existences I was born and brought up 
in the United States. In saying this I do not 
express the slightest regrets at having now 
been born in Asia. I only wish to give a hint 
to those white people who advocate an ex- 
clusive policy that in their next life they may 
be born in Asia or in Africa, and that the 
injury they are now inflicting on the yellow 
people they may themselves have to suffer in 
another life. 

While admitting that we Chinese have our 
faults and that in some matters we have 
much to learn, especially from the Americans, 
we at least possess one moral quality, magna- 
nimity, while the primal virtues of industry, 
economy, obedience, and love of peace, com- 
bined with a "moderation in all things," are 
also common among us. Our people have 

[186] 



CHINESE CIVILIZATION 



frequently been slighted or ill-treated but we 
entertain no revengeful spirit, and are willing 
to forget. We believe that in the end right 
will conquer might. Innumerable as have 
been the disputes between Chinese and foreign- 
ers it can at least be said, without going into 
details, that we have not, in the first instance, 
been the aggressors. Let me supply a local 
illustration showing how our faults are always 
exaggerated. Western people are fond of 
horse-racing. In Shanghai they have secured 
from the Chinese a large piece of ground where 
they hold race meetings twice a year, but no 
Chinese are allowed on the grand-stand during 
the race days. They are provided with a 
separate entrance, and a separate enclosure, 
as though they were the victims of some 
infectious disease. I have been told that 
a few years ago a Chinese gentleman took 
some Chinese ladies into the grand-stand 
and that they misbehaved; hence this dis- 
criminatory treatment of Chinese. It is 
proper that steps should be taken to pre- 
serve order and decency in public places, but 
is it fair to interdict the people of a nation on 
account of the misconduct of two or three? 
Suppose it had been Germans who had 
misbehaved themselves (which is not likely), 
would the race club have dared to exclude 

[187] 



AMERICA 



Germans from sharing with other nations the 
pleasures of the races? 

In contrast with this, let us see what the 
Chinese have done. Having learned the 
game of horse-racing from the foreigners in 
China, and not being allowed to participate, 
they have formed their own race club, and, 
with intention, have called it the "Interna- 
tional Recreation Club." This Club has pur- 
chased a large tract of land at Kiangwan, 
about five miles from Shanghai, and has turned 
it into a race-course, considerably larger than 
that in Shanghai. When a race meeting is 
held there, it is open to foreigners as well as 
Chinese, in fact complimentary tickets have 
even been sent to the members of the foreign 
race club inviting their attendance. Half of 
the members of the race committee are 
foreigners; while foreigners and Chinese act 
jointly as stewards and judges; the ponies that 
run are owned by foreigners as well as by 
Chinese, and Chinese jockeys compete with 
foreign jockeys in all the events. A most 
pleasing feature of these races is the very 
manifest cordial good feeling which prevails 
throughout the races there. The Chinese 
have been dubbed 6 ' semi-civilized and heath- 
enish," but the "International Recreation 
Club" and the Kiangwan race-course display 

[188] 



CHINESE CIVILIZATION 



an absence of any desire to retaliate and senti- 
ments of international friendship such as it 
would, perhaps, be difficult to parallel. Should 
such people be denied admission into Australia, 
Canada, or the United States? Would not 
the exclusionists in those countries profit by 
association with them? 

The immigration laws in force in Australia 
are, I am informed, even more strict and more 
severe than those in the United States. They 
amount to almost total prohibition; for they 
are directed not only against Chinese laborers 
but are so operated that the Chinese merchant 
and student are also practically refused admis- 
sion. In the course of a lecture delivered in 
England by Mrs. Annie Besant in 1912 on 
"The citizenship of colored races in the British 
Empire," while condemning the race preju- 
dices of her own people, she brought out a 
fact which will be interesting to my readers, 
especially to the Australians. She says, "In 
Australia a very curious change is taking 
place. Color has very much deepened in 
that clime, and the Australian has become 
very yellow; so that it becomes a problem 
whether, after a time, the people would be 
allowed to live in their own country. The 
white people are far more colored than are 
some Indians." In the face of this plain 

[189] 



AMERICA 



fact is it not time, for their own sake, that 
the Australians should drop their cry against 
yellow people and induce their Parliament to 
abolish, or at least to modify, their immigra- 
tion laws with regard to the yellow race? 
Australians are anxious to extend their trade, 
and they have sent commercial commission- 
ers to Japan and other Eastern countries 
with the view to developing and expanding 
commerce. Mr. J. B. Suttor, Special Com- 
missioner of New South Wales, has published 
the following advertisement : 
"NEW SOUTH WALES. The Land of 
Reward for Capital Commerce and Industry. 
Specially subsidized steamers now giving 
direct service between Sydney, THE PRE- 
MIER COMMERCIAL CENTER OF 
AUSTRALIA, AND SHANGHAI. Thus 
offering special facilities for Commerce and 
Tourists. NEW SOUTH WALES PROD- 
UCTS ARE STANDARDS OF EXCEL- 
LENCE." 

Commerce and friendship go together, but 
how Australians can expect to develop trade 
in a country whose people are not allowed to 
come to visit her shores even for the purposes 
of trade, passes my comprehension. Perhaps, 
having heard so much of the forgiving and 
magnanimous spirit of the Chinese, Austra- 

[190] 



CHINESE CIVILIZATION 



lians expect the Chinese to greet them with 
smiles and to trade with them, while being 
kicked in return. 

I believe in the doctrine of the universal 
brotherhood of men. It is contrary to the 
law (God) of creation that some people should 
shut out other people from portions of the 
earth solely from motives of selfishness and 
jealousy; the injury caused by such selfish 
acts will sooner or later react on the doers. 
"Every man is his own ancestor. We are 
preparing for the days that come, and we are 
what we are to-day on account of what has 
gone before." The dog-in-the-manger policy 
develops doggish instincts in those who prac- 
tise it; and, after all, civilization without 
kindness and justice is not worth having. 
In conclusion, I will let the English poet, 
William Wordsworth, state "Nature's case." 

Listen to these noble lines from the ninth 
canto of his "Excursion." 

"Alas! what differs more than man from man, 
And whence that difference? Whence but from himself? 
For see the universal Race endowed 
With the same upright form. The sun is fixed 
And the infinite magnificence of heaven 
Fixed, within reach of every human eye; 
The sleepless ocean murmurs for all years; 
The vernal field infuses fresh delight 
Into all hearts. Throughout the world of sense, 
Even as an object is sublime or fair, 
That object is laid open to the view 

[191] 



AMERICA 



Without reserve or veil; and as a power 

Is salutary, or an influence sweet, 

Are each and all enabled to perceive 

That power, that influence, by impartial law, 

Gifts nobler are vouchsafed alike to all; 

Reason, and, with that reason, smiles and tears; 

Imagination, freedom in the will; 

Conscience to guide and check; and death to be 

Foretasted, immortality conceived 

By all — a blissful immortality, 

To them whose holiness on earth shall make 

The Spirit capable of heaven, assured. 

The smoke ascends 

To Heaven as lightly from the cottage hearth 

As from the haughtiest palace. He whose soul 

Ponders this true equality, may walk 

The fields of earth with gratitude and hope; 

Yet, in that meditation, will he find 

Motive to sadder grief, as we have found; 

Lamenting ancient virtues overthrown, 

And for the injustice grieving, that hath made 

So wide a difference between man and man." 



[192] 



CHAPTER XIII 

DINNERS, BANQUETS, ETC. 

DINNER, as we all know, indicates a 
certain hour and a certain habit whose 
aim is the nourishment of the body, and a 
deliverance from hunger; but in our modern 
civilized life it possesses other purposes also. 
Man is a gregarious animal, and when he takes 
his food he likes company; from this pecul- 
iarity there has sprung up the custom of 
dinner parties. In attending dinner parties, 
however, the guests as a rule do not seek 
sustenance, they only go to them when they 
have nothing else to do, and many scarcely 
touch the food that is laid before them. Their 
object is to do honor to the host and hostess, 
not to eat, but to be entertained by pleasant 
and congenial conversation. Nevertheless, 
the host, at whose invitation the company 
has assembled, is expected to provide a great 
abundance and a large variety of savory dishes, 
as well as a good supply of choice wines. 
Flesh and wine are indispensable, even though 
the entertainers eschew both in their private 
life, and most of the guests daily consume too 
much of each. Few have the courage to part 
[193] 



AMERICA 



with conventional practices when arranging a 
social function. 

American chefs are excellent caterers, and 
well know how to please the tastes of the 
American people. They concentrate on the 
art of providing dainty dishes, and human 
ingenuity is heavily taxed by them in their 
efforts to invent new gustatory delicacies. 
The dishes which they place before each guest 
are so numerous that even a gormand must 
leave some untouched. At a fashionable 
dinner no one can possibly taste, much less 
eat, everything that is placed before him, yet 
the food is all so nicely cooked and served 
in so appetizing a manner, that it is difficult 
to resist the temptation at least to sample it; 
when you have done this, however, you will 
continue eating until all has been finished, but 
your stomach will probably be a sad sufferer, 
groaning grievously on the following day on 
account of the frolic of your palate. This 
ill-mated pair, although both are chiefly in- 
terested in food, seldom seem to agree. I 
must not omit to mention however that the 
number of courses served at an American 
millionaire's dinner is after all less numerous 
than those furnished at a Chinese feast. 
When a Chinese gentleman asks his friends 
to dine with him the menu may include any- 

[194] 



DINNERS, BANQUETS, ETC. 



where from thirty to fifty or a hundred 
courses; but many of the dishes are only 
intended for show. The guests are not ex- 
pected to eat everything on the table, or even 
to taste every delicacy, unless, indeed, they 
specially desire to do so. Again, we don't 
eat so heartily as do the Americans, but con- 
tent ourselves with one or two mouthfuls 
from each set of dishes, and allow appreciable 
intervals to elapse between courses, during 
which we make merry, smoke, and otherwise 
enjoy the company. This is a distinct advan- 
tage in favor of China. 

In Europe and America, dessert forms the 
last course at dinner; in China this is served 
first. I do not know which is the better way. 
Chinese are ever ready to accept the best from 
every quarter, and so many of us have re- 
cently adopted the Western practice regard- 
ing dessert, while still retaining the ancient 
Chinese custom, so that now we eat sweet- 
meats and fruit at the beginning, during 
dinner, and at the end. This happy combina- 
tion of Eastern and Western practices is, I 
submit, worthy of expansion and extension. 
If it were to become universal it would help 
to discourage the present unwholesome habit, 
for it is nothing more than a habit, of de- 
vouring flesh. 

[195] 



AMERICA 



One of the dishes indispensable at a fashion- 
able American dinner is the terrapin. Those 
who eat these things say that their flesh has 
a most agreeable and delicate flavor, and that 
their gelatinous skinny necks and fins are 
delicious, but apparently the most palatable 
titbits pall the taste in time, for it is said 
that about forty years ago terrapins were 
so abundant and cheap that workmen in their 
agreement with their employers stipulated 
that terrapin should not be supplied at their 
dinner table more than three times a week. 
Since then terrapins have become so rare 
that no stylish dinner ever takes place with- 
out this dish. Oysters are another Western 
sine qua non, and are always served raw. I 
wonder how many ladies and gentlemen who 
swallow these mollusca with such evident 
relish know that they are veritable scaven- 
gers, which pick up and swallow every dirty 
thing in the water. A friend of mine after 
taking a few of them on one occasion, had 
to leave the table and go home; he was ill 
afterward for several days. One cannot be 
too careful as to what one eats. The United 
States has a Pure Food Department, but I 
think it might learn a great deal that it does 
not know if it were to send a commission 
to China to study life in the Buddhist mon- 

[196] 



DINNERS, BANQUETS, ETC. 



asteries, where only sanitary, healthful food 
is consumed. It is always a surprise to me 
that people are so indifferent to the kind of 
food they take. Public health officers are 
useful officials, but when we have become 
more civilized each individual will be his own 
health officer. 

Some of the well-known Chinese dishes are 
very relishable and should not be overlooked 
by chefs and dinner hostesses. I refer to the 
sharks' fins, and birds' nest — the Eastern 
counterpart of the Western piece de resistance 
— the terrapin. From a hygienic point of 
view sharks' fins may not be considered as 
very desirable, seeing they are part of the 
shark, but they are certainly not worse, and 
are perhaps better, than what is called the 
"high and tender" pheasant, and other flesh 
foods which are constantly found on Western 
dining tables, and which are so readily eaten 
by connoisseurs. Birds' nest soup is far 
superior to turtle soup, and I have the 
opinion of an American chemist who analyzed 
it, that it is innocuous and minus the injurious 
uric acid generated by animal flesh, the cause 
of rheumatic and similar painful complaints. 

The "chop suey" supplied in the Chinese 
restaurants in New York, Chicago, and other 
places, seems to be a favorite dish with the 
[197] 



AMERICA 



American public. It shows the similarity of 
our tastes, and encourages me to expect that 
some of my recommendations will be accepted. 

Will some one inform me why so many 
varieties of wines are always served on 
American tables, and why the sparkling 
champagne is never avoidable? Wealthy 
families will spare neither pains nor expense to 
spread most sumptuous dinners, and it has 
been reported that the cost of an entertain- 
ment given by one rich lady amounted to 
twenty thousand pounds sterling, although, as 
I have said, eating is the last thing for which 
the guests assemble. 

I do not suppose that many will agree with 
me, but in my opinion it would be much more 
agreeable, and improve the general conversa- 
tion, if all drinks of an intoxicating nature 
were abolished from the dining table. It is 
gratifying to know that there are some 
families (may the number increase every day !) 
where intoxicating liquors are never seen on 
their tables. The first instance of this sort 
that came under my notice was in the home of 
that excellent woman, Mrs. M. F. Henderson, 
who is an ardent advocate of diet reform and 
teetotalism. Mr. William Jennings Bryan, 
the Secretary of State, has set a noble example, 
as from newspaper reports it appears that he 

[198] 



DINNERS, BANQUETS, ETC. 



gave a farewell dinner to Ambassador Bryce, 
without champagne or other alcoholic drinks. 
He has a loyal supporter in Shanghai, in the 
person of the American Consul-General, Dr. 
A. P. Wilder, who, to the great regret of every- 
body who knows him in this port, is retiring 
from the service on account of ill-health. Dr. 
Wilder is very popular and figures largely in 
the social life of the community, but Dr. 
Wilder is a staunch opponent of alcohol, and 
through his influence wines at public dinners 
are always treated as extras. So long as the 
liquor traffic is so extensively and profitably 
carried on in Europe and America, and so long 
as the consumption of alcohol is so enormous, 
so long will there be a difference of opinion as 
to its ill effects, but in this matter, by means 
of its State Prohibition Laws, America is set- 
ting an example to the world. In no other 
country are there such extensive tracts with- 
out alcohol as the "Dry States" of America. 
China, who is waging war on opium, recog- 
nizes in this fact a kindred, active moral force 
which is absent elsewhere, and, shaking hands 
with her sister republic across the seas, hopes 
that she will some day be as free of alcoholic 
poisons as China herself hopes to be of opium. 
Every vice, however, has its defense. Some 
years ago I met a famous Dutch artist in 

[199] 



AMERICA 



Peking, who, though still in the prime of life, 
was obliged to lay aside his work for a few days 
each month, due to an occasional attack of 
rheumatism. I found he was fond of his cup, 
though I did not understand that he was an 
immoderate drinker. I discoursed to him 
somewhat lengthily about the evil effects of 
drink, and showed him that unless he was will- 
ing to give up all intoxicating liquor, his 
rheumatism would never give him up. He 
listened attentively, pondered for a few min- 
utes, and then gave this characteristic answer: 
"I admit the soundness of your argument 
but I enjoy my glass exceedingly; if I were to 
follow your advice I should be deprived of a 
lot of pleasure. Indeed, I would rather have 
the rheumatic pains, which disappear after 
two or three days, and continue to enjoy my 
alcoholic drinks, than endure the misery of 
doing without them." I warned him that in 
course of time his rheumatism would be longer 
in duration and attack him more frequently, 
if he continued to ignore its warnings and to 
play with what, for him, was certainly poison. 
When anyone has a habit, be it injurious or 
otherwise, it is not easy to persuade him to 
abandon it. 

"The Aristocracy of Health" written by the 
talented Mrs. Henderson is an admirable 

[200] 



DINNERS, BANQUETS, ETC. 



work. I owe much to it. The facts and argu- 
ments adduced against tobacco smoking, 
strong drink and poisonous foods, are set forth 
in such a clear and convincing manner, that 
soon after reading it I became a teetotaler and 
"sanitarian" 1 and began at once to reap the 
benefits. I felt that I ought not to keep such 
a good thing to myself, but that I should 
preach the doctrine far and wide. I soon 
found, however, that it was an impossible task 
to try to save men from themselves, and I 
acquired the unenviable sobriquet of "crank"; 
but I was not dismayed. From my native 
friends I turned to the foreign community in 
Peking, thinking that the latter would possess 
better judgment, appreciate and be converted 
to the sanitarian doctrine. Among the for- 
eigners I appealed to, one was a distinguished 
diplomat, and the other a gentleman in the 
Chinese service, with a world-wide reputation. 
Both were elderly and in delicate health, and 
it was my earnest hope that by reading Mrs. 
Henderson's book, which was sent to them, 
they would be convinced of their errors and 
turn over a new leaf — I was disappointed. 
Both, in returning the book, made substan- 

1 1 have never been a smoker and have always eschewed tobacco, 
cigarettes, etc.; though for a short while to oblige friends I oc- 
casionally accepted a cigarette, now I firmly refuse everything of the 
sort. 

[201] 



AMERICA 



tially the same answer. "Mrs. Henderson's 
work is very interesting, but at my time of 
life it is not advisable to change life-long 
habits. I eat flesh moderately, and never 
drink much wine." They both seemed to 
overlook the crucial problem as to whether or 
not animal food contains hurtful poison. If 
it does, it should not be eaten at all. We 
never hear of sensible people taking arsenic, 
strychnine, or other poisons, in moderation, 
but many foolish women, I believe, take 
arsenic to pale their complexions, while others, 
both men and women, take strychnine in 
combination with other drugs, as a tonic, but 
will anyone argue that these substances are 
foods? The rule of moderation is applicable 
to things which are nutritious, or at least 
harmless, but not to noxious foods, however 
small the quantity of poison they may 
contain. 

Pleasant conversation at the dinner table is 
always enjoyable, and a good talker is always 
welcome, but I often wonder why Americans, 
who generally are so quick to improve op- 
portunity, and are noted for their freedom 
from traditional conventionalisms, do not make 
a more systematic use of the general love of 
good conversation. Anyone who is a witty 
conversationalist, with a large fund of anec- 

[202] 



DINNERS, BANQUETS, ETC. 



dote, is sure to be asked by every dinner host 
to help to entertain the guests, but if the com- 
pany be large the favorite can be enjoyed by 
only a few, and those who are too far away to 
hear, or who are just near enough to hear a 
part but not all, are likely to feel aggrieved. 
They cannot hear what is amusing the rest, 
while the talk elsewhere prevents their talking 
as they would if there were no interruptions. 
A raconteur generally monopolizes half the 
company, and leaves the other half out in the 
cold. This might be avoided if talkers were 
engaged to entertain the whole company dur- 
ing dinner, as pianists are now sometimes 
engaged to play to them after dinner. Or, 
the entertainment might be varied by en- 
gaging a good professional reciter to reproduce 
literary gems, comic or otherwise. I am sure 
the result would bring more general satisfac- 
tion to the guests than the present method of 
leaving them to entertain themselves. Chi- 
nese employ singing girls ; Japanese, geishas to 
talk, sing or dance. The ideal would here 
again seem to be an amalgamation of East 
and West. 

It is difficult for a mixed crowd to be always 
agreeable, even in the congenial atmosphere 
of a good feast, unless the guests have been 
selected with a view to their opinions rather 

[203] 



AMERICA 



than to their social standing. Place a number 
of people whose ideas are common, with a 
difference, around a well-spread table and there 
will be no lack of good, earnest, instructive 
conversation. Most men and women can 
talk well if they have the right sort of listeners. 
If the hearer is unsympathetic the best talker 
becomes dumb. Hosts who remember this 
will always be appreciated. 

As a rule, a dinner conversation is seldom 
worth remembering, which is a pity. Man, 
the most sensible of all animals, can talk 
nonsense better than all the rest of his tribe. 
Perhaps the flow of words may be as steady as 
the eastward flow of the Yang-tse-Kiang in 
my own country, but the memory only retains 
a recollection of a vague, undefined — what? 
The conversation like the flavors provided by 
the cooks has been evanescent. Why should 
not hostesses make as much effort to stimulate 
the minds of their guests as they do to gratify 
their palates? What a boon it would be to 
many a bashful man, sitting next to a lady 
with whom he has nothing in common, if 
some public entertainer during the dinner 
relieved him from the necessity of always 
thinking of what he should say next? How 
much more he could enjoy the tasty dishes his 
hostess had provided; and as for the lady — 

[204] 



DINNERS, BANQUETS, ETC. 



what a number of suppressed yawns she might 
have avoided. To take great pains and spend 
large sums to provide nice food for people 
who cannot enjoy it because they have to 
talk to one another, seems a pity. Let one 
man talk to the rest and leave them leisure 
to eat, is my suggestion. 

The opportunities afforded at the dining 
table may be turned to many useful purposes. 
Of course not all are ill-paired, and many 
young men and ladies meet, sit side by side, 
engage in a friendly, pleasant conversation, 
renew their acquaintance at other times, and 
finally merge their separate paths in the 
highway of marriage. Perhaps China might 
borrow a leaf from this custom and substitute 
dinner parties for go-betweens. The dinner- 
party method, however, has its dangers as 
well as its advantages — it depends on the 
point of view. Personal peculiarities and de- 
fects, if any, can be easily detected by the way 
in which the conversation is carried on, and the 
manner in which the food is handled. It has 
sometimes happened that the affianced have 
cancelled their engagement after a dinner 
party. On the other hand, matters of great 
import can often be arranged at the dinner 
table better than anywhere else. Commercial 
transactions involving millions of dollars have 

[205] 



AMERICA 



frequently been settled while the parties 
were sipping champagne; even international 
problems, ending in elaborate negotiations and 
treaties, have been first discussed with the 
afterdinner cigar. The atmosphere of good 
friendship and equality, engendered by a well- 
furnished room, good cheer, pleasant company, 
and a genial hostess, disarms prejudice, re- 
moves barriers, melts reserve, and disposes 
one to see that there is another side to every 
question. 

In China when people have quarreled their 
friends generally invite them to dinner, where 
the matters in dispute are amicably arranged. 
These are called "peace dinners." I would 
recommend that a similar expedient should 
be adopted in America; many a knotty point 
could be disposed of by a friendly discussion 
at the dinner table. If international disputes 
were always arranged in this way the rep- 
resentatives of nations having complaints 
against each other might more often than now 
discover unexpected ways of adjusting their 
differences. Why should such matters in- 
variably be remanded to formal confer- 
ences and set speeches? The preliminaries, 
at least, would probably be better arranged 
at dinner parties and social functions. Eating 
has always been associated with friendship. 

[206] 



DINNERS, BANQUETS, ETC. 



"To eat salt" with an Arab forms a most 
binding contract. Even "the serpent" in the 
book of Genesis commenced his acquaintance 
with Eve by suggesting a meal. 

It almost seems as if there were certain 
unwritten laws in American society, assigning 
certain functions to certain days in the week. 
I do not believe Americans are superstitious, 
but I found that Thursday was greatly in 
favor. I remember on one occasion that 
Mrs. Grant, widow of the late President, 
sent an invitation to my wife and myself to 
dine at her house some Thursday evening; 
this was three weeks in advance, and we 
readily accepted her invitation. After our 
acceptance, about a dozen invitations came for 
that same Thursday, all of which we had, of 
course, to decline. Curiously enough we re- 
ceived no invitations for any other day during 
that week, and just before that eventful Thurs- 
day we received a letter from Mrs. Grant 
cancelling the invitation on account of the 
death of one of her relations, so that we had to 
dine at home after all. Now we Chinese make 
no such distinctions between days. Every day 
of the week is equally good ; in order however 
to avoid clashing with other peoples' engage- 
ments, we generally fix Fridays for our recep- 
tions or dinners, but there is not among 

[207] 



AMERICA 



the Chinese an entertainment season as there 
is in Washington, and other great cities, 
when everybody in good society is busy at- 
tending or giving "At Homes," tea parties or 
dinners. I frequently attended "At Homes" 
or tea parties in half-a-dozen places or more in 
one afternoon, but no one can dine during the 
same evening in more than one place. In 
this respect America might learn a lesson 
from China. We can accept half-a-dozen 
invitations to dinner for one evening; all we 
have to do is to go to each place in turn, par- 
take of one or two dishes, excuse ourselves to 
the host and then go somewhere else. By this 
means we avoid the seeming rudeness of a 
declination, and escape the ill feelings which 
are frequently created in the West by invita- 
tions being refused. The Chinese method 
makes possible the cultivation of democratic 
friendships without violating aristocratic in- 
stincts, and for candidates at election times it 
would prove an agreeable method by which to 
make new friends. We are less rigid than 
Americans about dropping in and taking a 
mouthful or two at dinner, even without a 
special invitation. 1 

1 Since writing the above, I have heard from an American lady 
that "progressive dinners" have recently been introduced by the 
idle and rich set of young people in New York. The modus 
operandi is that several dinners will, by arrangement, be given on 

[208] 



DINNERS, BANQUETS, ETC. 



Washington officials and diplomats usually 
give large entertainments. The arranging 
of the seats at the dinner table is a delicate 
matter, as the rule of precedence has to be 
observed, and inattention to the rule, by plac- 
ing a wrong seat for a gentleman or lady who 
is entitled to a higher place, may be considered 
as a slight. It is at such functions as these 
that the professional story-teller, the good re- 
citer, the clever reader, the perfect entertainer 
would make the natural selfish reserve of man- 
kind less apparent. 

Fashionable people, who entertain a good 
deal, are, I understand, often puzzled to know 
how to provide novelties. In addition to the 
suggestions I have made, may I be pardoned 
another? There are many good cooks in the 
U. S. A. Why not commission these to some- 
times prepare a recherche* Chinese dinner, with 
the food served in bowls instead of plates, and 
with chop-sticks ("nimble lads" we call them) 
for show, but forks and spoons for use. I see 
no reason why Chinese meals should not be- 
come fashionable in America, as Western 
preparations are frequently favored by the 

a certain day, and the guests will go to each house alternately, eating 
one or two dishes only and remaining at the last house for fruit. 
I can hardly believe this, but my friend assures me it is a fact. 
It seems that eating is turned into play, and to appreciate the fun, 
I would like to be one of the actors. 

[209] 



AMERICA 



EKte in China. One marked difference be- 
tween the two styles is the manner in which the 
Chinese purveyor throws his most delicate 
flavors into strong relief by prefacing it with 
a diet which is insipid, harsh or pungent. 
Contrasts add zest to everything human, be 
it dining, working, playing, or wooing. 

This suggests an occasional, toothsome vege- 
tarian repast as a set-off to the same round 
of fish, flesh, fowl and wine fumes. No peo- 
ple in the world can prepare such delicious vege- 
tarian banquets as a Chinese culinary artist. 

A banquet is a more formal affair than the 
dinner parties I have been discussing. It is 
generally gotten up to celebrate some special 
event, such as the conclusion of some impor- 
tant business, or the birthday of some national 
hero like Washington, Lincoln, or Grant; or 
the Chambers of Commerce and Associations 
of different trades in the important cities 
of America will hold their annual meetings to 
hear a report and discuss the businesses trans- 
acted during the year, winding up by holding 
a large banquet. 

The food supplied on these occasions is by 
no means superior to that given at private 
dinners, yet everybody is glad to be invited. 
It is the inevitable rule that speeches follow 
the eating, and people attend, not for the 

[210] 



DINNERS, BANQUETS, ETC. 



sake of the food, but for the privilege of 
hearing others talk. Indeed, except for the 
opportunity of talking, or hearing others 
talk, people would probably prefer a quiet 
meal at home. Speakers with a reputation, 
orators, statesmen, or foreign diplomats are 
frequently invited, and sometimes eminent 
men from other countries are the guests of 
honor. These functions occur every year, 
and the Foreign Ministers with whose coun- 
tries the Associations have commercial rela- 
tions are generally present. 

The topics discussed are nearly always the 
same, and it is not easy to speak at one of 
these gatherings without going over the same 
ground as that covered on previous occasions. 
I remember that a colleague of mine who was 
a clever diplomat, and for whom I had great 
respect, once when asked to make an after- 
dinner speech, reluctantly rose and, as far 
as I can remember, spoke to the following 
effect: "Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I 
thank your Association for inviting me to this 
splendid banquet, but as I had the honor of 
speaking at your banquet last year I have 
nothing more to add, and I refer you to that 
speech;" he then sat down. The novelty of 
his remarks, of course, won him applause, but 
I should like to know what the company 

[211] 



AMERICA 



really thought of him. For my part, I praised 
his wisdom, for he diplomatically rebuked all 
whose only interest is that which has its birth 
with the day and disappears with the night. 

Banquets and dinners in America, as in 
China, are, however, often far removed from 
frivolities. Statesmen sometimes select these 
opportunities for a pronouncement of their 
policy, even the President of the nation may 
occasionally think it advisable to do this. 
Speeches delivered on such occasions are 
generally reported in all the newspapers, and, 
of course, discussed by all sorts of people, the 
wise and the otherwise, so that the speaker 
has to be very careful as to what he says. Our 
President confines himself to the more formal 
procedure of issuing an official mandate, the 
same in kind, though differing in expression, 
as an American President's Inaugural Address, 
or one of his Messages to Congress. 

Commercial men do not understand and 
are impatient with the restrictions which 
hedge round a Foreign Minister, and in their 
anxiety to get speakers they will look any- 
where. On one occasion I received an invita- 
tion to go to Canada to attend a banquet at a 
Commercial Club in one of the principal 
Canadian cities. It would have given me 
great pleasure to be able to comply with this 

[212] 



DINNERS, BANQUETS, ETC. 



request, as I had not then visited that coun- 
try, but, contrary to inclination, I had to 
decline. I was accredited as Minister to 
Washington, and did not feel at liberty to 
visit another country without the special 
permission of my Home Government. 

Public speaking, like any other art, has to 
be cultivated. However scholarly a man 
may be, and however clever he may be in pri- 
vate conversation, when called upon to speak 
in public he may sometimes make a very 
poor impression. I have known highly 
placed foreign officials, with deserved repu- 
tations for wisdom and ability, who were 
shockingly poor speakers at banquets. They 
would hesitate and almost stammer, and 
would prove quite incapable of expressing their 
thoughts in any sensible or intelligent manner. 
In this respect, personal observations have 
convinced me that Americans, as a rule, are 

better speakers than (I will not 

mention the nationality in my mind, it might 
give offense.) An American, who, without 
previous notice, is called upon to speak, 
generally acquits himself creditably. He is 
nearly always witty, appreciative, and frank. 
This is due, I believe, to the thorough-going 
nature of his education: he is taught to be 
self-confident, to believe in his own ability 

[213] 



AMERICA 



to create, to express his opinions without fe<jr. 
A diffident and retiring man, whose chief 
characteristic is extreme modesty, is not 
likely to be a good speaker; but Americans 
are free from this weakness. Far be it 
from me to suggest that there are no good 
speakers in other countries. America can by 
no means claim a monopoly of orators; 
there are many elsewhere whose sage sayings 
and forcible logic are appreciated by all who 
hear or read them; but, on the whole, Amer- 
icans excel others in the readiness of their 
wit, and their power to make a good extem- 
pore speech on any subject, without oppor- 
tunity for preparation. 

Neither is the fair sex in America behind 
the men in this matter. I have heard some 
most excellent speeches by women, speeches 
which would do credit to an orator; but they 
labor under a disadvantage. The female voice 
is soft and low, it is not easily heard in a large 
room, and consequently the audience some- 
times does not appreciate lady speakers to the 
extent that they deserve. However, I know a 
lady who possesses a powerful, masculine 
voice, and who is a very popular speaker, but 
she is an exception. Anyhow I believe the 
worst speaker, male or female, could improve 
by practising private declamation, and awak- 

[214] 



DINNERS, BANQUETS, ETC. 



ening to the importance of articulation, modu- 
lation, and — the pause. 

Another class of social functions are "At 
Homes," tea parties, and receptions. The 
number of guests invited to these is almost 
unlimited, it may be one or two dozen, or one 
or two dozen hundreds. The purpose of 
these is usually to meet some distinguished 
stranger, some guest in the house, or the 
newly married daughter of the hostess. It 
is impossible for the host or hostess to remem- 
ber all those who attend, or even all who have 
been invited to attend ; generally visitors leave 
their cards, although many do not even 
observe this rule, but walk right in as if 
they owned the house. When a newcomer is 
introduced his name is scarcely audible, and 
before the hostess, or the distinguished guest, 
has exchanged more than one or two words 
with him, another stranger comes along, so 
that it is quite excusable if the next time the 
hosts meet these people they do not recognize 
them. In China a new fashion is now in 
vogue; new acquaintances exchange cards. 
If this custom should be adopted in America 
there would be less complaints about new 
friends receiving the cold shoulder from 
those who they thought should have known 
them. 

[215] 



AMERICA 



In large receptions, such as those mentioned 
above, however spacious the reception hall, 
in a great many instances there is not even 
standing room for all who attend. It requires 
but little imagination to understand the con- 
dition of the atmosphere when there is no 
proper ventilation. Now, what always aston- 
ished me was, that although the parlor might 
be crowded with ladies and gentlemen, all the 
windows were, as a rule, kept closed, with the 
result that the place was full of vitiated air. 
Frequently after a short time I have had 
to slip away when I would willingly have re- 
mained longer to enjoy the charming company. 
If I had done so, however, I should have 
taken into my lungs a large amount of the 
obnoxious atmosphere exhaled from hundreds 
of other persons in the room, to the injury of 
my health, and no one can give his fellows 
his best unless his health is hearty. No won- 
der we often hear of a host or hostess being 
unwell after a big function. Their feelings 
on the morning after are often the reverse 
of "good-will to men," and the cause is not 
a lowered moral heartiness but a weakened 
physical body through breathing too much air 
exhaled from other people's lungs. When 
man understands, he will make "good health" 
a religious duty. 

[216] 



DINNERS, BANQUETS, ETC. 



In connection with this I quote Dr. J. H. 
Kellogg, the eminent physician and Super- 
intendent of the Battle Creek Sanitarium. 
In his book, "The Living Temple," x the doctor 
speaks as follows on the importance of breath- 
ing pure air: "The purpose of breathing is 
to obtain from the air a supply of oxygen, 
which the blood takes up and carries to the 
tissues Oxygen is one of the most essential 
of all the materials required for the support 

of life The amount of oxygen 

necessarily required for this purpose is about 
one and one-fourth cubic inches for each 

breath In place of the one and 

one-fourth cubic inches of oxygen taken into 
the blood, a cubic inch of carbonic acid gas is 
given off, and along with it are thrown off 
various other still more poisonous substances 
which find a natural exit through the lungs. 
The amount of these combined poisons thrown 
off with a single breath is sufficient to contam- 
inate, and render unfit to breathe, three cu- 
bic feet, or three-fourths of a barrel, of air. 
Counting an average of twenty breaths a 
minute for children and adults, the amount 
of air contaminated per minute would be 
three times twenty or sixty cubic feet, or one 



l "The Living Temple," by J. H. Kellogg, pp. 282 el al. Pub- 
lished by Good Health Publishing Co., Battle Creek, Mich., U. S. A. 

[217] 



AMERICA 



cubic foot a second Every one 

should become intelligent in relation to the 
matter of ventilation, and should appreciate 
its importance. Vast and irreparable injury 
frequently results from the confinement of 
several scores or hundreds of people in a 
schoolroom, church, or lecture room, with- 
out adequate means of removing the impur- 
ities thrown off from their lungs and bod- 
ies. The same air being breathed over and 
over becomes densely charged with poisons, 
which render the blood impure, lessen the 
bodily resistance, and induce susceptibility 
to taking cold, and to infection with the germs 
of pneumonia, consumption, and other infec- 
tious diseases, which are always present in a 
very crowded audience room. Suppose, for 
example, a thousand persons are seated in a 
room forty feet in width, sixty in length, and 
fifteen in height : how long a time would elapse 
before the air of such a room would become 
unfit for further respiration? Remembering 
that each person spoils one foot of air every 
second, it is clear that one thousand cubic feet 
of air will be contaminated for every second 
that the room is occupied. To ascertain the 
number of seconds which would elapse before 
the entire air contained in the room will be 
contaminated, so that it is unfit for further 

[218] 



DINNERS, BANQUETS, ETC. 



breathing, we have only to divide the cubic 
contents of the room by one thousand. 
Multiplying, we have 60 X 40 X 15 equals 
36,000, the number of cubic feet. This, 
divided by one thousand, gives thirty-six 
as the number of seconds. Thus it appears 
that with closed doors and windows, breath 
poisoning of the audience would begin at the 
end of thirty-six seconds, or less than one 
minute. The condition of the air in such a 
room at the end of an hour cannot be ade- 
quately pictured in words, and yet hundreds 
of audiences are daily subjected to just such 
inhumane treatment through ignorance." 

The above remarks apply not only to 
churches, lecture rooms, and other public 
places, but also with equal force to offices and 
family houses. I should like to know how many 
persons pay even a little attention to this im- 
portant subject of pure air breathing ? You go 
to an office, whether large or small, and you 
find all the windows closed, although there 
are half-a-dozen or more persons working in 
the room. No wonder that managers, clerks, 
and other office workers often break down and 
require a holiday to recuperate their impaired 
health at the seaside, or elsewhere. 

When you call at a private residence you 
will find the same thing, all the windows 

[219] 



AMERICA 



closed. It is true that there are not so many 
persons in the room as in an office, but if your 
sense of smell is keen you will notice that the 
air has close, stuffy exhalations, which surely 
cannot be sanitary. If you venture to sug- 
gest that one of the windows be opened the 
lady of the house will at once tell you that 
you will be in a draught and catch cold. 

It is a matter of daily occurrence to find a 
number of persons dining in a room where 
there is no opening for the contaminated air 
to leak out, or for the fresh air to come in. 
After dinner the gentlemen adjourn to the 
library to enjoy the sweet perfumes of smoking 
for an hour or so with closed windows. What 
a picture would be presented if the bacteria in 
the air could be sketched, enlarged and thrown 
on a screen, or better still shown in a cine- 
matograph, but apparently gentlemen do not 
mind anything so long as they can inhale the 
pernicious tobacco fumes. 

It is a common practice, I fear, to keep the 
windows of the bedroom closed, except in hot 
weather. I have often suggested to friends 
that, for the sake of their health, they should 
at least keep one of the windows, if not more, 
open during the night, but they have pooh- 
poohed the idea on account of that bugaboo 
—a draught. It is one of the mysteries of the 

[220] 



DINNERS, BANQUETS, ETC. 



age that people should be willing to breathe 
second-hand air when there is so much pure, 
fresh air out of doors to be had for nothing; 
after inhaling and exhaling the same air over 
and over again all through the night it is not 
strange that they rise in the morning languid 
and dull instead of being refreshed and in 
high spirits. No one who is deprived of a 
sufficiency of fresh air can long remain effi- 
cient. Health is the cornerstone of success. 
I hear many nowadays talking of Eugenics. 
Eugenics was founded ten years ago by Sir 
Francis Galton, who defined it thus: "The 
study of agencies under control that may im- 
prove or impair the racial qualities of future 
generations, either physically or mentally." 
The University of London has adopted this 
definition, where a chair of Eugenics has been 
founded. This science is undoubtedly of the 
first importance, but what advantage is good 
birth if afterward life is poisoned with foul 
air? A dust-laden atmosphere is a germ- 
laden atmosphere, therefore physicians pre- 
scribe for tubercular convalescents conditions 
in which the air is 90% free from dust. 
However, the air of the city has been scien- 
tifically proven to be as pure as the air of the 
country. All that is necessary to secure 
proper lung food is plenty of it, — houses so 

[221] 



AMERICA 



constructed that the air inside shall be free 
to go out and the air outside to come in. 
Air in a closed cage must be mischievous, and 
what are ill- ventilated rooms but vicious air 
cages, in which mischiefs of all sorts breed? 

America professes to believe in publicity, 
and what is "publicity" but the open window 
and the open door? Practise this philosophy 
and it will be easy to keep on the sunny side 
of the street and to discourage the glooms. 
The joys fly in at open windows. 



CHAPTER XIV 



THEATERS 

THE ideal of China is sincerity but an 
actor is a pretender. He appears to be 
what he is not. Now our ancient wise men felt 
that pretense of any sort must have a danger- 
ous reactionary influence on the character. 
If a man learns how to be a clever actor on 
the stage he may be a skilled deceiver in other 
walks of life. Moreover, no one to whom 
sincerity is as the gums are to the teeth, 
would wish to acquire the art of acting as 
though he were some one else. Hence actors 
in China have from ancient times been looked 
down upon. Actresses, until the last decade 
or so, were unknown in China, and a boy who 
became an actor could never afterward occupy 
any position of honor. He, his children and 
his grandchildren might be farmers, mer- 
chants or soldiers, but they could never 
be teachers, literary men or officials. The 
Chinese feeling for sincerity, amounting al- 
most to worship, has caused the profession of 
an actor in China to be considered a very low 
one, and so until the new regime the actor 

[223] 



AMERICA 



was always debarred from attending any- 
literary examination, and was also deprived 
of the privilege of obtaining official appoint- 
ment; in fact he was considered an outcast 
of society. No respectable Chinese family 
would think of allowing their son to go on the 
stage. As a natural consequent the members 
of the Chinese stage have, as a rule, been men 
who were as much below the level of moral 
respectability as conventionalism had already 
adjudged them to be below the level of social 
respectability. Regard anyone as a mirror 
with a cracked face and he will soon justify 
your opinion of him. If the morals of 
Chinese actors will not bear investigation it is 
probably due to the social ostracism to which 
they have always been subjected. The same 
phenomenon may be seen in connection with 
Buddhism. As soon as Buddhism in China 
ceased to be a power the priests became a 
despised class and being despised they have 
often given occasion to others to despise them. 

I am aware that quite a different view is 
held of the stage in America and Europe, and 
that actors and actresses are placed on an 
equal footing with other members of society. 
This does not, of course, mean that either 
America or Europe lays less stress on sin- 
cerity than China, but simply that we have 

[224] 



THEATERS 



developed in different ways. I have heard 
of the old "morality plays," I know that 
English drama, like the Egyptian, Greek, and 
Indian, had its origin in religion, but this alone 
will not explain the different attitude assumed 
toward actors in the West from that taken up 
in China. I am inclined to think that the 
reason why actors are not despised in the West 
as they are in China is because the West 
considers first the utility of pleasure, and the 
East the supremacy of sincerity. Here, as is 
so frequently the case, apparent differences are 
largely differences of emphasis. The West 
would seem to emphasize the beauty of the de- 
sire to please where Chinese consider the effect 
on character or business. The expensive 
dinners which no one eats and which I dis- 
cussed in a previous chapter are an illustra- 
tion. No one in China would spend money 
in this fashion excepting for some definite 
purpose. 

We Chinese like to flatter, and to openly 
praise to their faces those whom we admire. 
Most Westerners, would, I think, please 
rather than admire; most men and women in 
America and Europe enjoy applause more than 
instruction. This recognition of the delicate 
pleasure of being able to please some one else 
naturally attracts quite a different type to the 

[225] 



AMERICA 



Western stage from the material usually found 
in Chinese dramatic companies, and in a 
society where everyone acknowledges the 
beauty of pleasing another, the position of the 
actor naturally becomes both envied and de- 
sirable. When therefore a man or woman 
succeeds on the European or American stage 
he or she is looked up to and welcomed in 
fashionable society, e.g., Henry Irving had 
the entree to the highest society, and his por- 
trait was always found among the notables. 
Newspapers published long notices of his stage 
performances, and when he died he received 
as great honors as England could give. Dur- 
ing his lifetime he enjoyed the royal favor of 
Queen Victoria, who conferred a knighthood 
upon him. After his death his biography was 
published and read by thousands. All this is 
quite contrary to the spirit of the Chinese 
who, no matter how clever a man may be as 
an actor, can never forget that he is a pre- 
tender and that the cleverer he is the greater 
care exists for guarding one's self against 
his tricks. 

Actresses are no less respected and honored 
in the West, whereas in China there are posi- 
tively no respectable women on the stage. 
Yet in the West it is a common occurrence to 
hear of marriages of actresses to bankers, 

[226] 



THEATERS 



merchants, and millionaires. Even ballet- 
girls have become duchesses by marriage. 
The stage is considered a noble profession. 
Often, when a girl has a good voice, nothing 
will satisfy her but a stage career. A situa- 
tion such as this is very difficult for a Chinese 
to analyze. The average Chinese woman 
lacks the imagination, the self-abandon, the 
courage which must be necessary before a girl 
can think of herself as standing alone in a 
bright light before a large audience waiting to 
see her dance or hear her sing. Chinese 
actresses were quite unknown until very 
recently, and the few that may be now found 
on the Chinese stage were nearly all of ques- 
tionable character before they entered the 
theater. In the northern part of China some 
good Chinese women may be found in cir- 
cuses, but these belong to the working class 
and take up the circus life with their hus- 
bands and brothers for a livelihood. 

The actresses of the West are different. 
They are drawn to the stage for the sake of 
art; and it must be their splendid daring as 
much as their beauty which induces wealthy 
men, and even some of the nobility, to marry 
these women. Man loves courage and re- 
spects all who are brave enough to fight , for 
their own. In a world where self-love (not 



AMERICA 



selfishness) is highly esteemed, manhood, 
or the power of self-assertion, whether in man 
or woman, naturally becomes a fascinating 
virtue. No one likes to be colleague to a 
coward. The millionaires and others who 
have married actresses — and as actresses make 
plenty of money they are not likely to be will- 
ing to marry poor men — meet many women in 
society as beautiful as the women they see on 
the stage, but society women lack the supreme 
courage and daring of the stage girl. Thus, 
very often the pretty, though less educated, 
ballet-girl, wins the man whom her more 
refined and less self-assertive sister — the ordi- 
nary society girl — is sorry to lose. 

The suffragettes are too intent just now on 
getting "Votes for Women" to listen to pro- 
posals of marriage, but when they succeed in 
obtaining universal suffrage I should think 
they would have little difficulty in obtaining 
brave husbands, for the suffragettes have 
courage. These women, however, are serious, 
and I do not think that men in the West, 
judging from what I have seen, like very seri- 
ous wives. So perhaps after all the ballet- 
girl and actresses will have more chances in 
the marriage (I had almost written money) 
market than the suffragettes. 

I may be mistaken in my theories. I have 
[228] % 



THEATERS 



never had the opportunity of discussing the 
matter with a millionaire or an actress, nor 
have I talked about the stage with any of the 
ladies who make it their home, but unless it is 
their superb independence and their ability 
to throw off care and to act their part which 
attract men who are looking for wives, I 
cannot account for so many actresses marrying 
so well. 

What, however, we may ask, is the object 
of the theater? Is it not amusement? But 
when a serious play ending tragically is put on 
the boards is that amusement? The feelings 
of the audience after witnessing such a play 
must be far from pleasant, and sometimes 
even moody; yet tragedies are popular, 
and many will pay a high price to see a 
well-known actor commit most objection- 
able imitation-crimes on the stage. A few 
weeks before this chapter was written a 
number of men of different nationalities were 
punished for being present at a cockfight 
in Shanghai. Mexican and Spanish bullfights 
would not be permitted in the United States, 
and yet it is a question whether the birds 
or the animals who take part in these 
fights really suffer very much. They are in 
a state of ferocious exaltation, and are more 
concerned about killing their opponents than 
[229] 



AMERICA 



about their own hurts. Soldiers have been 
seriously wounded without knowing anything 
about it until the excitement of the battle had 
died away. Why then forbid cockfighting or 
bull-baiting ? They would be popular amuse- 
ments if allowed. It is certain that animals 
that are driven long distances along dirty 
roads, cattle, sheep, and fowl that are cooped 
up for many weary hours in railway trucks, 
simply that they may reach a distant market 
and be slaughtered to gratify perverted human 
appetites, really suffer more than the cock or 
bull who may be killed or wounded in a fight 
with others of his own kind. What about 
the sufferings of pugilists who take part in the 
prize-fights, in which so many thousands in the 
United States delight? It cannot be pity, 
therefore, for the birds or beasts, which makes 
the authorities forbid cockfighting and bull- 
baiting. It must be that although these are 
exhibitions of courage and skill, the exhibition 
is degrading to the spectators and to those 
who urge the creatures to fight. But what is 
the difference, so far as the spectator is con- 
cerned, between watching a combat between 
animals or birds and following a vivid dramati- 
zation of cruelty on the stage? In the latter 
case the mental sufferings which are portrayed 
are frequently more harrowing than the details 

[230] 



THEATERS 



of any bull- or cockfight. Such representa- 
tion, therefore, unless a very clear moral lesson 
or warning is emblazoned throughout the play, 
must have the effect of making actors, ac- 
tresses and spectators less sympathetic with 
suffering. Familiarity breeds insensibility. 
What I have said of melodrama applies 
also, though in a lesser degree, to books, 
and should be a warning to parents to exercise 
proper supervision of their children's reading. 

Far be it from me to disparage the work of 
the playwright; the plot is often well laid and 
the actors, especially the prima-donna, execute 
their parts admirably. I am considering the 
matter, at the moment, from the view-point 
of a play-goer. What benefit does he receive 
from witnessing a tragedy? In his home and 
his office has he not enough to engage his 
serious attention, and to frequently worry his 
mind? Is it worth his while to dress and 
spend an evening watching a performance 
which, however skilfully played, will make him 
no happier than before ? It is a characteristic 
of those who are fond of sensational plays that 
they do not mind watching the tragical end- 
ing of a hero or a heroine, and all for the sake 
of amusement. Young people and children 
are not likely to get good impressions from 
this sort of thing. It has even been said that 

[231] 



AMERICA 



murders have been committed by youngsters 
who had been taken by their parents to see a 
realistic melodrama. It is dangerous to allow 
young people of tender age to see such plays. 
The juvenile mind is not ripe enough to form 
correct judgments. Some time ago I read in 
one of the American papers that "a boy had 
killed his father with a knife, on seeing him 
ill-treat his mother when in a state of intoxi- 
cation. It appeared that the lad had wit- 
nessed a dramatic tragedy in a theater, and 
in killing his father considered he was doing 
a heroic act. He could; by the same rule, 
have been inspired to a noble act of self- 
sacrifice. 

After all, the main question is, does a sen- 
sational play exercise a beneficial or a perni- 
cious influence over the audience? If the 
reader will consider the matter impartially he 
should not have any difficulty in coming to a 
right conclusion. 

Theatrical performances should afford 
amusement and excite mirth, as well as give 
instruction. People who visit theaters desire 
to be entertained and to pass the time pleas- 
antly. Anything which excites mirth and 
laughter is always welcomed by an audience. 
But a serious piece from which humor has 
been excluded, is calculated, even when 



THEATERS 



played with sympathetic feeling and skill, to 
create a sense of gravity among the spec- 
tators, which, to say the least, can hardly be 
restful to jaded nerves. Yet when composing 
his plays the playwright should never lose 
sight of the moral. Of course he has to pay 
attention to the arrangement of the different 
parts of the plot and the characters repre- 
sented, but while it is important that each act 
and every scene should be harmoniously and 
properly set, and that the characters should 
be adapted to the piece as a whole, it is none 
the less important that a moral should be en- 
forced by it. The practical lesson to be 
learned from the play should never be lost 
sight of. In Chinese plays the moral is 
always prominent. The villain is punished, 
virtue is rewarded, while the majority of the 
plays are historical. All healthy-minded peo- 
ple will desire to see a play end with virtue 
rewarded, and vice vanquished. Those who 
want it otherwise are unnatural and possess 
short views of life. Either in this life or in 
some other, each receives according to his de- 
serts, and this lesson should always be taught 
by the play. Yet from all the clever dramas 
which have been written and acted on the 
Western stage from time to time what a very 
small percentage of moral lessons can be 

[233] 



AMERICA 



drawn, while too many of them have un- 
fortunately been of an objectionable nature. 
Nearly everyone reads novels, especially the 
younger folk; to many of these a visit to a 
theater is like reading a novel, excepting that 
the performance makes everything more real- 
istic. A piece with a good moral cannot 
therefore fail to make an excellent impression 
on the audience while at the same time afford- 
ing them amusement. 

I am somewhat surprised that the churches, 
ethical societies and reform associations in 
America do not more clearly appreciate the 
valuable aid they might receive from the stage. 
I have been told that some churches pay their 
singers more than their preachers, which shows 
that they have some idea of the value of good 
art. Why not go a step further and preach 
through a play? This does not mean that 
there should be no fun but that the moral 
should be well thrust home. I have heard 
of preachers who make jokes while preaching, 
so that it should not be so very difficult to 
act interesting sermons which would elevate, 
even if they did not amuse. People who went 
to church to see a theater would not expect 
the same entertainment as those who go to 
the theater simply for a laugh. 

In China we do not expend as much energy 
[234] 



THEATERS 



as Americans and Europeans in trying to make 
other people good. We try to be good our- 
selves and believe that our good example, like 
a pure fragrance, will influence others to be 
likewise. We think practice is as good as 
precept, and, if I may say so without being 
supposed to be critical of a race different 
from my own, the thought has sometimes sug- 
gested itself to me that Americans are so intent 
on doing good to others, and on making others 
good, that they accomplish less than they 
would if their actions and intentions were 
less direct and obvious. I cannot here ex- 
plain all I mean, but if my readers will 
study what Li Yu and Chuang Tsz have to 
say about "Spontaneity" and "Not Inter- 
fering," I think they will understand my 
thought. The theater, as I have already said, 
was in several countries religious in its origin; 
why not use it to elevate people indirectly? 
The ultimate effect, because more natural, 
might be better and truer than more direct 
persuasion. Pulpit appeals, I am given to 
understand, are sometimes very personal. 

Since writing the above I have seen a news- 
paper notice of a dramatic performance in 
the Ethical Church, Queen's Road, Bayswater, 
London. The Ethical Church believes "in 
everything that makes life sweet and human" 

[235] 



AMERICA 



and the management state that they believe 
— "the best trend of dramatic opinion to-day 
points not only to the transformation of 
theaters into centers of social enlightenment 
and moral elevation, but also to the trans- 
formation of the churches into centers for the 
imaginative presentation, by means of all 
the arts combined, of the deeper truths and 
meanings of life." Personally, I do not know 
anything about this society, but surely there 
is nothing out of harmony with Christianity 
in these professions, and I am glad to find 
here an alliance between the two greatest fac- 
tors in the development of Western thought 
and culture — the church and the theater. 
The newspaper article to which I have 
referred was describing the "old morality 
play, Everyman" which had been performed 
in the church. The visitor who was some- 
what critical, and apparently unused to 
seeing the theater in a church, wrote of the 
performance thus: "Both the music and the 
dressing of the play were perfect, and from 
the moment that Death entered clad in blue 
stuff with immense blue wings upon his 
shoulders, and the trump in his hand, and 
stopped Everyman, a gorgeous figure in 
crimson robes and jewelled turban, with the 
question, 'Who goes so gaily by?' the play 

[236] 



THEATERS 



was performed with an impressiveness that 
never faltered. 

"The heaviest burden, of course, falls on 
Everyman, and the artist who played this 
part seemed to me, though I am no dramatic 
critic, to have caught the atmosphere and the 
spirit of the play. His performance, indeed, 
was very wonderful from the moment when 
he offers Death a thousand boons if only the 
dread summons may be delayed, to that 
final tense scene, when, stripped of his outer 
robe, he says his closing prayers, hesitates for 
a moment to turn back, though the dread 
angel is there by his side, and then follows 
the beckoning hand of Good Deeds, a figure 
splendidly robed in flowing draperies of crim- 
son and with a wonderfully expressive mobile 
face. 

"At the conclusion of the play Dr. Stanton 
Colt addressed a few words to the enthusiastic 
audience, 'Forsake thy pride, for it will 
profit thee nothing,' he quoted, 'If we could 
but remember this more carefully and also 
the fact that nothing save our good deeds 
shall ever go with us into that other World, 
surely it would help us to a holier and better 
life. Earthly things have their place and 
should have a due regard paid to them, but 
we must not forget the jewel of our souls. ,,, 

[237] 



AMERICA 



I have, of course, heard of the "Passion 
Play" at Oberammergau in Germany where 
the life of Jesus Christ is periodically repre- 
sented on the stage, but I say nothing about 
this, for, so far as I know, it is not performed 
in America, and I have not seen it; but I may 
note in passing that in China theaters are 
generally associated with the gods in the 
temples, and that the moral the play is meant 
to teach is always well driven home into the 
minds of the audience. We have not, how- 
ever, ventured to introduce any of our sages 
to theater audiences. 

The theater in China is a much simpler 
affair than in America. The residents in a 
locality unite and erect a large stage of bamboo 
and matting, the bamboo poles are tied with 
strips of rattan, and all the material of the 
stage, excepting the rattan, can be used over 
again when it is taken down. Most of the 
audience stand in front of the stage and in 
the open air, the theater generally being in 
front of the temple; and the play, which often 
occupies three or four days, is often performed 
in honor of the god's birthday. There is no 
curtain, and there are no stage accessories. 
The audience is thus enabled to concentrate 
its whole attention on the acting. Female 
parts are played by men, and everything is 

[238] 



THEATERS 



beautifully simple. There is no attempt to 
produce such elaborate effects as I have seen 
in the West, and of course nothing at all re- 
sembling the pantomime, which frequently 
requires mechanical arts. A newspaper para- 
graph caught my eye while thinking of this 
subject. I reproduce it. 

"The Century Theater in New York City 
has special apparatus for producing wind 
effects, thunder and lightning simultaneously. 
The wind machine consists of a drum with 
slats which are rotated over an apron of 
corded silk, which produces the whistling 
sound of wind; the lightning is produced by 
powdered magnesium electrically ignited; 
thunder is simulated by rolling a thousand 
pounds of stone, junk and chain down a chute 
ending in an iron plate, followed by half-a- 
dozen cannon balls and supplemented by the 
deafening notes of a thunder drum." 

Although, however, Chinese play-goers do 
not demand the expensive outfits and stage 
sceneries of the West, I must note here that 
not even on the American stage have I seen 
such gorgeous costumes, or robes of so rich 
a hue and displaying such glittering gold 
ornaments and graceful feathers, as I have 
seen on the simple Chinese stage I have just 
described. Western fashions are having a 
[239] 



AMERICA 



tendency in our ports and larger cities to 
modify some things that I have stated about 
Chinese theatrical performances, but the point 
I wish especially to impress on my readers is 
that theatrical performances in China, while 
amusing and interesting, are seldom melo- 
dramatic, and as I look back on my experi- 
ences in the United States, I cannot but think 
that the good people there are making a 
mistake in not utilizing the human natural 
love for excitement and the drama as a 
subsidiary moral investment. And, of course, 
all I have said of theaters applies with equal 
force to moving-picture shows. 



[240] 



CHAPTER XV 



OPERA AND MUSICAL ENTERTAINMENTS 

OPERA is a form of entertainment which, 
though very popular in America and 
England, does not appeal to me. I know 
that those who are fond of music love to 
attend it, and that the boxes in an opera 
house are generally engaged by the fashion- 
able set for the whole season beforehand. 
I have seen members of the "four hundred" 
in their boxes in a New York opera house; 
they have been distinguished by their mag- 
nificent toilettes and brilliant jewelry; but I 
have been thinking of the Chinese drama, 
which, like the old Greek play, is also based 
on music, and Chinese music with its soft and 
plaintive airs is a very different thing from 
the music of grand opera. Chinese music 
could not be represented on Western instru- 
ments, the intervals between the notes being 
different. Chinese singing is generally "reci- 
tative" accompanied by long notes, broken, or 
sudden chords from the orchestra. It differs 
widely from Western music, but its effects are 
wonderful. One of our writers has thus de- 
[241] 



AMERICA 



scribed music he once heard: "Softly, as the 
murmur of whispered words; now loud and 
soft together, like the patter of pearls and 
pearlets dropping upon a marble dish. Or 
liquid, like the warbling of the mango-bird in 
the bush; trickling like the streamlet on its 
downward course. And then like the torrent, 
stilled by the grip of frost, so for a moment 
was the music lulled, in a passion too deep 
for words." That this famous description 
of the effects of music which I have borrowed 
from Mr. Dyer Ball's "Things Chinese" is 
not exaggerated, anyone who knows China 
may confirm by personal observation of the 
keen enjoyment an unlearned, common day 
laborer will find in playing a single lute all 
by himself for hours beneath the moon on a 
warm summer evening, with no one listening 
but the trees and the flitting insects; but it 
requires a practised ear to appreciate singing 
and a good voice. On one occasion I went to 
an opera house in London to hear the world- 
renowned Madame Patti. The place was so 
crowded, and the atmosphere so close, that I 
felt very uncomfortable and I am ashamed to 
acknowledge that I had to leave before she 
had finished. If I had been educated to ap- 
preciate that sort of music no doubt I would 
have comprehended her singing better, and, 

[242] 



MUSICAL ENTERTAINMENTS 



however uncomfortable, I should no doubt 
have remained to the end of the entertainment. 

While writing this chapter it happened that 
the following news from New York was 
published in the local papers in Shanghai. It 
should be interesting to my readers, especially 
to those who are lovers of music. 

"'Yellow music' will be the next novelty 
to startle and lure this blase* town; amuse- 
ment forecasters already see in the offing a 
Fall invasion of the mysterious Chinese airs 
which are now having such a vogue in London 
under the general term of 'yellow music.' 

"The time was when Americans and occi- 
dentals in general laughed at Chinese music, 
but this was due to their own ignorance of its 
full import and to the fact that they heard 
only the dirges of a Chinese funeral proces- 
sion or the brassy noises that feature a celes- 
tial festival. They did not have opportunity 
to be enthralled by the throaty, vibrant 
melodies — at once lovingly seductive and 
harshly compelling — by which Chinese poets 
and lovers have revealed their thoughts and 
won their quest for centuries. The stirring 
tom-tom, if not the ragtime which sets the 
occidental capering to-day, was common to 
the Chinese three or four hundred years ago. 
They heard it from the wild Tartars and 

[243] 



AMERICA 



Mongols — heard it and rejected it, because it 
was primitive, untamed, and not to be 
compared with their own carefully controlled 
melodies. Mr. Emerson Whithorne, the fa- 
mous British composer, who is an authority on 
oriental music, made this statement to the 
London music lovers last week: 

"'The popularity of Chinese music is still 
in its childhood. Prom now on it will grow 
rapidly. Chinese music has no literature, as 
we understand that term, but none can say 
that it has not most captivating melodies. 
To the artistic temperament, in particular, 
it appeals enormously, and well-known artists 
— musicians, painters, and so on — say that it 
affects them in quite an extraordinary way.' " 

Chinese music from an occidental stand- 
point has been unjustly described as "clashing 
cymbals, twanging guitars, harsh flageolets, 
and shrill flutes, ear-splitting and headache- 
producing to the foreigner." Such general 
condemnation shows deplorable ignorance. 
The writer had apparently never attended 
an official service in honor of Confucius, 
held biennially during the whole of the Ching 
dynasty at 3 a. m. The "stone chimes," 
consisting of sonorous stones varying in tone 
andyhanging in frames, which were played 
on those solemn occasions, have a haunting 



MUSICAL ENTERTAINMENTS 



melody such as can be heard nowhere else. 
China, I believe, is the only country that has 
produced music from stones. It is naturally 
gratifying to me to hear that Chinese airs 
are now having a vogue in London, and that 
they will soon be heard in New York. It will 
take some little time for Westerners to learn 
to listen intelligently to our melodies which, 
being always in unison, in one key and in 
one movement, are apt at first to sound as 
wearisome and monotonous as Madame 
Patti's complicated notes did to me, but 
when they understand them they will have 
found a new delight in life. 

Although we Chinese do not divide our 
plays into comedies and tragedies there is 
frequently a good deal of humor on the 
Chinese stage; yet we have nothing in China 
corresponding to the popular musical comedy 
of the West. A musical comedy is really a 
series of vaudeville performances strung to- 
gether by the feeblest of plots. The essence 
seems to be catchy songs, pretty dances, and 
comic dialogue. The plot is apparently im- 
material, its only excuse for existence being 
to give a certain order of sequence to the 
aforesaid songs, dances, and dialogues. That, 
indeed, is the only object for the playwright's 
introducing any plot at all, hence he does not 
[245] 



AMERICA 



much care whether it is logical or even within 
the bounds of probability. The play-goers, I 
think, care even less. They go to hear the 
songs, see the dances, laugh at the dialogues, 
and indulge in frivolous frivolities; what do 
they want with a plot, much less a moral? 
Chinese vaudeville takes the form of clever 
tumbling tricks which I think are much pref- 
erable to the sensuous, curious, and self- 
revealing dances one sees in the West. 

Although musical comedy, or, more properly 
speaking, musical farce, is becoming more and 
more popular in both Europe and America it 
is also becoming proportionately more far- 
cical; although in many theaters it is staged as 
often as the more serious drama, in some having 
exclusive dominion; and although theater 
managers find that these plays draw bigger 
crowds and fill their houses better than any 
other, in the large cities running for over a 
year, I cannot help regarding this feature of 
theatrical life as so much theatrical chaos. It 
lacks culture, and is sometimes both bizarre 
and neurotic. I do not object to patter, smart 
give and take, in which the comical angles of 
life are exposed, if it is brilliant; neither have 
I anything to say against light comedy in 
which the ridiculous side of things is por- 
trayed. This sort of entertainment may 

[246] 



MUSICAL ENTERTAINMENTS 



help men who have spent a busy day, 
crowded with anxious moments, and weighted 
with serious responsibilities, but exhibitions 
which make men on their way home talk not 
of art, or of music, or of wit, but of "the 
little girl who wore a little black net" are 
distinctly to be condemned. Even the class 
who think it waste of time to think, and who 
go to the theater only to "laugh awfully," 
are not helped by this sort of entertainment. 
Such songs as the following, which I have 
culled from the Play Pictorial, a monthly 
published in London, must in time pall the 
taste of even the shallow-minded. 

"Can't you spare a glance? 

Have we got a chance? 

You've got a knowing pair of eyes; 

When it's 2 to 1 

It isn't much fun," 

This is what she soon replies : 

"Oh, won't you buy a race-card, 

And take a tip from me? 

If you want to find a winner, 

It's easy as can be 

When the Cupid stakes are starting, 

Your heads are all awhirl, 

And my tip to-day 

Is a bit each way 

On the race-card girl." 

Yet this, apparently, is the sort of thing 
which appeals to the modern American who 
wants amusement of the lightest kind, amuse- 

[247] 



AMERICA 



ment which appeals to the eye and ear with 
the lightest possible tax on his already 
over-burdened brain. He certainly cannot 
complain that his wishes have not been faith- 
fully fulfilled. It may be due to my ignorance 
of English, but the song I have just quoted 
seems to me silly, and I do not think any 
"ragtime music" could make it worth sing- 
ing. Of course many songs and plays in 
the music halls are such as afford innocent 
mirth, but it has to be confessed that there are 
other things of a different type which it is 
not wise for respectable families to take the 
young to see. I would not like to say all I think 
of this feature of Western civilization, but I 
may quote an Englishman without giving 
offense. Writing in the Metropolitan Maga- 
zine ' 9 Louis Sherwin says: "There is not a 
doubt that the so-called 6 high-brow dancer' 
has had a lot to do with the bare-legged epi- 
demic that rages upon the comic-opera stage 
to-day. Nothing could be further removed 
from musical comedy than the art of such 
women as Isadora Duncan and Maude Allen. 
To inform Miss Duncan that she has been 
the means of making nudity popular in musical 
farce would beyond question incur the lady's 
very reasonable wrath. But it is none the less 
true. When the bare-legged classic dancer 

[248] 



MUSICAL ENTERTAINMENTS 



made her appearance in opera houses, and on 
concert platforms with symphony orchestras, 
it was the cue for every chorus girl with an 
ambition to undress in public. First of all 
we had a plague of Salomes. Then the 
musical comedy producers, following their 
usual custom of religiously avoiding anything 
original, began to send the pony ballets and 
soubrettes on the stages without their hosiery 
and with their knees clad in nothing but a 
coat of whitewash (sometimes they even for- 
got to put on the whitewash, and then the 
sight was horrible). The human form divine, 
with few exceptions, is a devilish spectacle 
unless it is properly made up. Some twenty 
years from now managers will discover what 
audiences found out months ago, that a 
chorus girl's bare leg is infinitely less beauti- 
ful than the same leg when duly disguised 
by petticoats and things." 



[249] 



CHAPTER XVI 



CONJURING AND CIRCUSES 

ITER what I have said as to the position 



not be surprised at my saying that the per- 
formance of a conjuror should not be en- 
couraged. What pleasure can there be in 
being tricked? It may be a great display of 
dexterity to turn water into wine, to seem to 
cut off a person's head, to appear to swallow 
swords, to escape from locked handcuffs, 
and to perform the various cabinet tricks, 
but cleverness does not alter the fact that after 
all it is only deception cunningly contrived 
and performed in such a way as to evade 
discovery. It appears right to many because 
it is called "legerdemain" and "conjuring" 
but in reality it is exactly the same thing as 
that by which the successful card-sharper 
strips his victims, viz., such quickness of 
hand that the eye is deceived. Should we 
encourage such artful devices? History tells 
many stories as to the way in which people 
have been kept in superstitious bondage by 
illusions and magic, and if it be now held to 




actor in China my readers will 



[250] 



CONJURING AND CIRCUSES 



be right to deceive for fun how can it be held 
to have been wrong to deceive for religion? 
Those who made the people believe through 
practising deception doubtless believed the 
trick to be less harmful than unbelief. I 
contend, therefore, that people who go to 
see conjuring performances derive no good 
from them, but that, on the contrary, they are 
apt to be impressed with the idea that to 
practise deception is to show praiseworthy 
skill. It is strange how many people pay 
money to others to deceive them. More 
than ever before, people to-day actually 
enjoy being cheated. If the tricks were clum- 
sily devised and easily detected there would 
be no attraction, but the cleverer and more 
puzzling the trick the more eagerly people 
flock to see it. 

Christian preachers and moralists could do 
well to take up this matter and discourage 
people from frequenting the exhibitions of 
tricksters. There are doubtless many laws in 
nature yet undiscovered, and a few persons 
undoubtedly possess abnormal powers. This 
makes the cultivation of the love of trickery 
the more dangerous. It prevents the truth 
from being perceived. It enables charlatans 
to find dupes, and causes the real magician to 
be applauded as a legerdemainist. This is 
[251] 



AMERICA 



what the New Testament tells us happened 
in the case of Jesus Christ. His miracles 
failed to convince because the people had for 
a long time loved those who could deceive 
them cleverly. The people said to him, 
"Thou hast a devil," and others warned them 
after his death saying, "That deceiver said 
while he was yet alive "After three days I will 
rise again.'" When people are taught not 
only to marvel at the marvelous but to be in- 
different to its falsehoods they lose the power 
of discrimination, and are apt to take the true 
for the false, the real for the unreal. 

For an evening's healthy enjoyment I 
believe a circus is as good a place as can 
be found anywhere. The air there is not 
close and vitiated as in a theater; you can 
spend two or three hours comfortably without 
inhaling noxious atmospheres. It is interest- 
ing to note that the circus is perhaps the only 
form of ancient entertainment which has 
retained something of its pristine simplicity. 
To-day, as in the old Roman circuses, tiers 
of seats run round the course, which in 
the larger circuses is still in the form of an 
ellipse, with its vertical axis, where the 
horses and performers enter, cut away. But 
the modern world has nothing in this con- 
nection to compare with the Circus Maximus 



CONJURING AND CIRCUSES 



of Rome, which, according to Pliny, held a 
quarter of a million spectators. It is singular, 
however, that while the old Roman circuses 
were held in permanent buildings, modern 
circuses are mostly travelling exhibitions in 
temporary erections. In some respects the 
entertainment offered has degenerated with 
the change, for we have to-day nothing in 
the circus to correspond to the thrilling char- 
iot races in which the old Romans delighted. 
I wonder that in these days of restless search 
for novelties some one does not re-introduce 
the Roman chariot race under the old condi- 
tions, and with a reproduction of the old sur- 
roundings. It would be as interesting and as 
exciting as, and certainly less dangerous than, 
polo played in automobiles, which I under- 
stand is one of the latest fads in the West. 
A modern horse-race, with its skill, daring and 
picturesqueness, is the only modern entertain- 
ment comparable to the gorgeous races of the 
Romans. 

The exhibition of skillful feats of horse- 
manship and acrobatic displays by juvenile 
actors, rope-dancing, high vaulting and other 
daring gymnastic feats seen in any of our pres- 
ent-day circuses are interesting, but not new. 
The Romans had many clever tight-rope walk- 
ers, and I do not think they used the long pole 
[253] 



AMERICA 



loaded at the ends to enable them to main- 
tain their equilibrium, as do some later per- 
formers. Japanese tumblers are very popular 
and some of their tricks clever, but I think 
the Western public would find Chinese acro- 
bats a pleasant diversion. With practice, it 
would seem as if when taken in hand during 
its supple years there is nothing that cannot 
be done with the human body. Sometimes 
it almost appears as if it were boneless, so 
well are people able by practice to make use 
of their limbs to accomplish feats which 
astonish ordinary persons whose limbs are less 
pliable. 

The trapeze gives opportunity for the dis- 
play of very clever exhibition, of strength and 
agility; at first sight the gymnast would 
appear to be flying from one cross-bar to the 
other, and when watching such flights I have 
asked myself: "If a person can do that, why 
cannot he fly?" Perhaps human beings will 
some day be seen flying about in the air like 
birds. It only requires an extension of the 
trapeze "stunt." Travelling in the air by 
means of airships or aeroplanes is tame sport 
in comparison with bird-like flights, whether 
with or without artificial wings. 

There are many advantages in being able 
to travel in the air. One is a clear and pure 

[254] 



CONJURING AND CIRCUSES 



atmosphere such as cannot be obtained in 
a railway car, or in a cabin on board a ship; 
another is the opportunity afforded of look- 
ing down on this earth, seeing it as in a 
panorama, with the people looking like ants. 
Such an experience must broaden the mental 
outlook of the privileged spectator, and enable 
him to guess how fragmentary and perverted 
must be our restricted view of things in 
general. There is, however, danger of using 
such opportunities for selfish and mischievous 
purposes. A wicked man might throw a bomb 
or do some other wicked nonsense just as some 
one else, who really sees things as they are 
and not as they seem to be, might employ his 
superior knowledge to benefit himself and in- 
jure his fellows; but the mention of the trapeze 
and its bird-like performers has diverted me 
from my theme. 

I suppose that a reference to the circus 
would be incomplete which overlooked the 
clowns, those poor survivals of a professional 
class of jesters who played what appears to 
have been a necessary part in society in ruder 
days, when amusements were less refined and 
less numerous. The Chinese have never felt 
the need of professional foolers, and I cannot 
say that I admire the circus clown, but the 
intelligence which careful training develops 

[255] 



AMERICA 



in the horse, the dog, etc., interests me a 
good deal. An instance of this came under 
my own observation during a recent visit to 
Shanghai of "FilhV Circus." Mr. Fillis had 
a mare which for many years had acted the 
part of the horse of a highway robber. The 
robber, flying from his enemies, urges the 
animal beyond its strength, and the scene 
culminated with the dying horse being carried 
from the arena to the great grief of its master. 
When this entertainment was given in Shang- 
hai this horse — "Black Bess" — fell sick. A 
tonic was administered in the shape of the 
lively tune which the band always played as 
she was about to enter the arena and play her 
part as the highwayman's mare. The animal 
made pitiable attempts to rise, and her 
inability to do so apparently suggested to the 
intelligent creature the dying scene she had so 
often played. She lay down and relaxed, 
prepared to die in reality. The attendants, 
ignorant of the manner in which the horse 
had let herself go, tried to lift her, but in 
her relaxed condition her bowels split — Black 
Bess had acted her part for the last time. 



[256] 



CHAPTER XVII 



SPORTS 

PERHAPS in nothing do the Chinese 
differ from their Western friends in the 
matter of amusements more than in regard to 
sports. The Chinese would never think of 
assembling in thousands just to see a game 
played. We are not modernized enough to 
care to spend half a day watching others 
play. When we are tired of work we like to 
do our own playing. Our national game is 
the shuttlecock, which we toss from one to 
another over our shoulders, hitting the shut- 
tlecock with the flat soles of the shoes we are 
wearing. Sometimes we hit with one part of 
the foot, sometimes with another, according to 
the rules of the game. This, like kite-flying, 
is a great amusement among men and boys. 

We have nothing corresponding to tennis 
and other Western ball games, nor, indeed, 
any game in which the opposite sexes join. 
Archery was a health-giving exercise of which 
modern ideas of war robbed us. The same 
baneful influence has caused the old-fashioned 
healthful gymnastic exercises with heavy 

[257] 



AMERICA 



weights to be discarded. I have seen young 
men on board ocean-going steamers throwing 
heavy bags of sand to one another as a pas- 
time. This, though excellent practice, hardly 
equals our ancient athletic feats with the bow 
or the heavy weight. Western sports have 
been introduced into some mission and other 
schools in China, but I much doubt if they 
will ever be really popular among my people. 
They are too violent, and, from the oriental 
standpoint, lacking in dignity. Yet, when 
Chinese residing abroad do take up Western 
athletic sports they prove themselves the 
equals of all competitors, as witness their suc- 
cess in the Manila Olympiad, and the name 
the baseball players from the Hawaiian Is- 
lands Chinese University made for themselves 
when they visited America. Nevertheless, 
were the average Chinese told that many peo- 
ple buy the daily paper in the West simply to 
see the result of some game, and that a sport- 
ing journalism flourishes there, i.e., papers de- 
voted entirely to sport, they would regard the 
statement as itself a pleasant sport. Person- 
ally, I think we might learn much from the 
West in regard to sports. They certainly in- 
crease the physical and mental faculties, and 
for this reason, if for no other, deserve to be 
warmly supported. China suffers because her 

[258] 




"we like to do our own plating, otjr 
national game is the shuttlecock " 



SPORTS 



youths have never been trained to team-work. 
We should be a more united people if as boys 
and young men we learned to take part in 
games which took the form of a contest, in 
which, while each contestant does his best 
for his own side, the winning or losing of the 
game is not considered so important as the 
pleasure of the exercise. I think a great deal 
of the manliness which I have admired in the 
West must be attributed to the natural love 
of healthy sport for sport's sake. Games 
honestly and fairly played inculcate the 
virtues of honor, candidness, and chivalry, of 
which America has produced many worthy 
specimens. When one side is defeated the 
winner does not exult over his defeated 
opponents but attributes his victory to an 
accident; I have seen the defeated crew in a 
boat race applauding their winning opponents. 
It is a noble example for the defeated con- 
testants to give credit to and to applaud the 
winner, an example which I hope will be 
followed by my countrymen. 

As an ardent believer in the natural, 
healthy and compassionate life I was inter- 
ested to find in the Encyclopedia Britan- 
nica how frequently vegetarians have been 
winners in athletic sports. 1 They won the 

1 E. B., 9th ed., vol. 33, p. 649. 
[259] 



AMERICA 



Berlin to Dresden walking match, a distance of 
125 miles, the Carwardine Cup (100 miles) and 
Dibble Shield (6 hours) cycling races (1901- 
02), the amateur championship of England 
in tennis (four successive years up to 1902) 
and racquets (1902), the cycling championship 
of India (three years), half-mile running 
championship of Scotland (1896), world's 
amateur cycle records for all times from 
four hours to thirteen hours (1902), 100 miles 
championship Yorkshire Road Club (1899, 
1901), tennis gold medal (five times). I have 
not access to later statistics on this subject 
but I know that it is the reverse of truth to 
say, as Professor Gautier, of the Sarbonne, a 
Catholic foundation in Paris, recently said, 
that vegetarians "suffer from lack of energy 
and weakened will power." The above facts 
disprove it, and as against Prof. Gautier, I 
quote Dr. J. H. Kellogg, the eminent physi- 
cian and Superintendent of Battle Creek 
Sanitarium in Michigan, U. S. A., who has 
been a strict vegetarian for many years and 
who, though over sixty years of age, is as 
strong and vigorous as a man of forty; he 
told me that he worked sixteen hours daily 
without the least fatigue. Mrs. Annie Besant, 
President of the Theosophical Society, is 
another example. I am credibly informed 

[260] 



SPORTS 



that she has been a vegetarian for at least 
thirty-five years and that it is doubtful if 
any flesh-eater who is sixty-five can equal 
her in energy. Whatever else vegetarians 
may lack they are not lacking in powers of 
endurance. 

It is needless for me to say that hunting, 
or, as it is called, "sport," is entirely opposed 
to my idea of the fitness of things. I do not 
see why it should not be as interesting to 
shoot at "clay pigeons" as to kill living birds; 
and why moving targets are not as suitable a 
recreation as running animals. "The pleas- 
ures of the chase" are no doubt fascinating, 
but when one remembers that these so-called 
pleasures are memories we have brought with 
us from the time when we were savages and 
hunted for the sake of food, no one can be 
proud of still possessing such tastes. To say 
that hunters to-day only kill to eat would be 
denied indignantly by every true sportsman. 
That the quarry is sometimes eaten after- 
ward is but an incident in the game; the 
splendid outdoor exercise which the hunt 
provides can easily be found in other ways 
without inflicting the fear, distress, and pain 
which the hunted animals endure. It is a 
sad commentary on the stage at which 
humanity still is that even royalty, to whom 

[261] 



AMERICA 



we look for virtuous examples, seldom misses 
an opportunity to hunt. When a man has a 
strong hobby he is unable to see its evil side 
even though in other respects he may be 
humane and kind-hearted. Thus the sorry 
spectacle is presented of highly civilized and 
humane people displaying their courage by 
hunting and attacking wild animals, not only 
in their own native country but in foreign 
lands as well. Such personages are, I regret 
to have to add, not unknown in the United 
States. 

The fact that hunting has been followed 
from time immemorial, that the ancient Egyp- 
tians, Assyrians, and Babylonians indulged in 
this pastime, does not make it any more suit- 
able an occupation for us to-day. The good 
qualities of temper and patience which hunt- 
ing demands are equally well developed by 
athletic sports. I understand that a good 
hunting establishment will cost as much as 
$10,000 (£2000) a year. Surely those who 
can afford so much on luxuries could find a 
more refined amusement in yachting and 
similar recreations. To sail a yacht suc- 
cessfully in half a gale of wind, is, I should 
imagine, more venturesome, more exciting, 
and a pastime requiring a manifestation of 
more of the qualities of daring, than shooting 

[262] 



SPORTS 



a frightened animal from the safe retreat of 
the saddle of a trusty horse; and not even 
the hunt of the wild beast can equal in true 
sportsmanship a contest with the wind and 
the waves, for it is only occasionally that a 
beast shows fight because he is wounded, and 
even then the man is well protected by his gun; 
but whether yachting or swimming the sports- 
man's attitude of watchfulness is uninter- 
rupted. I fancy it is convention and custom, 
rather than conviction of the superiority 
of the sport, that has given hunting its pre- 
eminence. It is on record that four thousand 
years ago the ancient emperors of China 
started periodically on hunting expeditions. 
They thus sought relief from the monotony of 
life in those days; in the days of the Stuarts, 
in England, royalty found pleasure in shows 
which were childish and even immoral. Of 
course in barbarous countries all savages 
used to hunt for food. For them hunting was 
an economic necessity, and it is no slander to 
say that the modern hunt is a relic of barbar- 
ism. It is, indeed, a matter of surprise to me 
that this cruel practice has not ceased, but 
still exists in this twentieth century. It 
goes without saying that hunting means kill- 
ing the defenseless, inflicting misery and 
death on the helpless; even if it be admitted 

[263] 



AMERICA 



that there is some justification for killing a 
ferocious and dangerous animal, why should 
we take pleasure in hunting and killing the 
fox, the deer, the hare, the otter, and similar 
creatures? People who hunt boast of their 
bravery and fearlessness, and to show their 
intrepidity and excellent shooting they go to 
the wilderness and other countries to carry 
on their "sport." I admire their fearless 
courage but I am compelled to express my 
opinion that such actions are not consistent 
with those of a good-hearted humane gentle- 
man. 

Still less excuse is there for the practice of 
shooting. What right have we to wantonly 
kill these harmless and defenseless birds 
flying in the air? I once watched pigeon 
shooting at a famous watering place, the poor 
birds were allowed to fly from the trap-holes 
simply that they might be ruthlessly killed 
or maimed. That was wanton cruelty; to 
reprobate too strongly such revolting bar- 
barity is almost impossible. I am glad to say 
that such cruel practices did not come under 
my observation during my residence in the 
States, and I hope that they are not American 
vices but are prohibited by law. No country, 
with the least claim to civilization, should 
allow such things, and our descendants will be 

[264] 



SPORTS 



astonished that people calling themselves 
civilized should have indulged in such whole- 
sale and gratuitous atrocities. When people 
allow animals to be murdered — for it is 
nothing but murder — for the sake of sport, 
they ought not to be surprised that men are 
murdered by criminals for reasons which seem 
to them good and sufficient. An animal 
has as much right to its life as man has to 
his. Both may be called upon to sacrifice 
life for the sake of some greater good to a 
greater number, but by what manner of 
reasoning can killing for killing's sake be 
justified? Does the superior cunning and 
intellect of man warrant his taking life for 
fun? Then, should a race superior to human- 
ity ever appear on the earth, man would have 
no just cause of complaint if he were killed off 
for its amusement. There formerly existed 
in India a "well-organized confederacy of pro- 
fessional assassins" called Thugs, who wor- 
shipped the goddess Kali with human lives. 
They murdered according to "rigidly pre- 
scribed forms " and for religious reasons. The 
English, when they came into power in India, 
naturally took vigorous measures to stamp 
out Thuggeeism; but from a higher point of 
view than our own little selves, is there after 
all so much difference between the ordinary 

[265] 



AMERICA 



sportsman and the fanatic Thuggee ? If there 
be, the balance is rather in favor of the latter, 
for the Thug at least had the sanction of 
religion, while the hunter has nothing to 
excuse his cruelty beyond the lust of killing. 
I do not understand why the humane societies, 
such as "The Society for the Prevention 
of Cruelty to Animals," are so supine in regard 
to these practices. The Chinese are fre- 
quently accused of being cruel to animals, but 
I think that those who "are living in glass 
houses should not throw stones. 

In this connection I would remark that 
birds are shot not only for pleasure and for 
their flesh, but in some cases for their plu- 
mage, and women who wear hats adorned 
with birds' feathers, do, though indirectly, 
encourage the slaughter of the innocent. 
Once a Chinese was arrested by the police in 
Hongkong for cruelty to a rat. It appeared 
that the rat had committed great havoc in 
his household, stealing and damaging various 
articles of food; when at last it was caught the 
man nailed its feet to a board, as a warning 
to other rats. For this he was brought before 
the English Magistrate, who imposed a pen- 
alty of ten dollars. He was astonished, and 
pleaded that the rat deserved death, on ac- 
count of the serious havoc committed in his 

[266] 



SPORTS 



house. The Magistrate told him that he 
ought to have instantly killed the rat, and 
not to have tortured it. The amazed offender 
paid his fine, but murmured that he did not 
see the justice of the British Court in not 
allowing him to punish the rat as he chose, 
while foreigners in China were allowed the 
privilege of shooting innocent birds without 
molestation. I must confess, people are not 
always consistent. 

The Peace Societies should take up this 
matter, for hunting is an imitation of war 
and an apprenticeship to it. It certainly can 
find no justification in any of the great world 
religions, and not even the British, or the 
Germans, who idolize soldiers, would immor- 
talize a man simply because he was a hunter. 
From whatever point the subject be viewed 
it seems undeniable that hunting is only a 
survival of savagery. 



[267] 



C 320 88 I 



°0 rvO 



O * O 



y -vsfls 




v .6*" *o, « 

^V" % * * * V- Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
A&JrtV-iL'* 1 Neutralizing Agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: 




-d|A JA N 1998 

Bbbkkeeper 

PRESERVATION TECHNOLOGIES, LP. 
1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Twp., PA 16066 



